jmog wrote:

j_crazy wrote:




only shales or sandstones are permeable enough to commercially produce oil and gas from and they take millions of years to bury deep enough to achieve the hydrocarbon formation.

See, there you go with the "non-facts" again. You have stated a perfectly viable scientific theory, but not a fact.

jmog wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
That is creating synthetic life.

The bacterium was dead thus life was created.

I sure wish you would study some biology. You may be a scientist but you are very ingnorant of biology and geology.

That is where your words are misleading. I am a scientist. So what? You are in your field but that does not make you versed in all fields of science and with the nonsense you spout about geology and biology it shows it.

We have created synthetic life. No god needed.

They restored/changed the bacterium into another bacterium. They did not create a synthetic bacterium from scratch like you are alluding to.

Do you really want me to start putting links up to all of your absolutely retarded threads/posts where you have zero clue what you are talking about? How about that "china/socialist economy buying our debt" thread?

I've already said this is a huge breakthrough in the field of biomedical engineering. However, to say this is a huge breakthrough in the study of abiogenesis is laughable at best. This breakthrough has ZERO to do with proteins to single cell animal. They started with a cell and implanted synthetic DNA.

LJ wrote: I've never understood why people get off on bashing religion/science.

Some atheists are just as bad as evangelists

j_crazy wrote:

you're starting to piss me off.

you can't just say "that's theory it's not a fact." because that (the statement) is your opinion.

i'm done. i'm not here to convince anyone of the existence (or lack thereof) of god.

CenterBHSFan wrote: Mooney44,

If there is to be a burden of proof, then it should be balanced on both sides equally. One cannot disprove the other for that very reason.

Mooney44Cards wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Mooney44,

If there is to be a burden of proof, then it should be balanced on both sides equally. One cannot disprove the other for that very reason.

millions of books written on the subject of the Big Bang, other theories of the development of the universe, evolution, plate tectonics, geology.

THERES your burden of proof, your turn.

"Bible" is not an acceptable answer.

LJ wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Mooney44,

If there is to be a burden of proof, then it should be balanced on both sides equally. One cannot disprove the other for that very reason.

millions of books written on the subject of the Big Bang, other theories of the development of the universe, evolution, plate tectonics, geology.

THERES your burden of proof, your turn.

"Bible" is not an acceptable answer.

So you have proof that a "god" didn't set those events into motion?

Mooney44Cards wrote: People who believe everything in a book of metaphors is true,

You know while you think your arguments are helping your point it just makes you look even more narrow-minded and.......cRaZy!

I am not going to sit here and feed you scientific facts.

But tell me this.....how come you trust science BUT ONLY SO LONG AS IT DOESN'T DISPROVE THE BIBLE? So I assume you believe that the Earth is round, that the sun is the center of the solar system, etc. And you believe most other things science tells you, but not when it comes to something that doesn't jive with the Bible. THAT makes you look crazy. Choosing to believe what you believe in is fine, but I'm not sure what is so shocking and naughty about the Earth being millions of years old. Like I said, I think if you don't trust science, you shouldn't be entitled to any of the benefits it has provided us over the years. No electricity, no medicine, no cars, no synthetic materials. Things like math and physics were used to develop all of those things, and it just so happens that math and physics have extrapolated evolution as well. But in that case, it didn't work? Or do they have a vendetta against the believers?

Why is the burden of proof on us, when yours is the theory that has nothing behind it except a book that belongs on the Fiction shelf in the local library?

Mooney44Cards wrote:

millions of books written on the subject of the Big Bang, other theories of the development of the universe, evolution, plate tectonics, geology.

THERES your burden of proof, your turn.

"Bible" is not an acceptable answer.

LJ wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Mooney44,

If there is to be a burden of proof, then it should be balanced on both sides equally. One cannot disprove the other for that very reason.

millions of books written on the subject of the Big Bang, other theories of the development of the universe, evolution, plate tectonics, geology.

THERES your burden of proof, your turn.

"Bible" is not an acceptable answer.

So you have proof that a "god" didn't set those events into motion?

jmog wrote:

j_crazy wrote:

you're starting to piss me off.

you can't just say "that's theory it's not a fact." because that (the statement) is your opinion.

i'm done. i'm not here to convince anyone of the existence (or lack thereof) of god.

Its theoretical that its would take millions of years for the "dead bodies" to be pushed down far enough. Thats an idea with no real proof, especially since there is proof that rock layers can be laid on top and "push down" at much faster rates than previously believed with things like floods, volcanic eruptions, etc.

I don't believe I said that oil could be formed in volcanic rock, I said that rock layers could be formed much faster than previously believed.

And I'm sorry that someone pointing out your scientific and Biblical mistakes is pissing you off.

Mooney44Cards wrote:

LJ wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Mooney44,

If there is to be a burden of proof, then it should be balanced on both sides equally. One cannot disprove the other for that very reason.

millions of books written on the subject of the Big Bang, other theories of the development of the universe, evolution, plate tectonics, geology.

THERES your burden of proof, your turn.

"Bible" is not an acceptable answer.

So you have proof that a "god" didn't set those events into motion?

Whoa whoa whoa.....I never said a word about God. Actually I said that believing in God has nothing to do with every event in the Bible being true or not. I am not bashing anyone for believe, or lack thereof, in God. But the people that want to say that Creationism being true, and existence of God are mutually exclusive is just a waste of time. Somehow if evolution is true, God ceases to exist?! Ugh.

jmog wrote:

Mooney44Cards wrote:

millions of books written on the subject of the Big Bang, other theories of the development of the universe, evolution, plate tectonics, geology.

THERES your burden of proof, your turn.

"Bible" is not an acceptable answer.

Millions of books? Really?

lol, you obviously haven't read as much as you think about plate tectonics, geology, etc.

I'm not going to rehash everything I've referenced about these topics again on this thread, read the many threads on the politics forum about this, the thread about Noah's Ark in this forum, etc.

I've discussed these topics dozens of times on these forums and never once used the Bible as a scientific resource or proof, so please spare me that lecture.

Also, please save me the physics/math has extrapolated evolution BS, you made that up and have no clue what you are talking about. A mathmetician will tell you that evolution is statistically impossible.

jmog wrote: Millions of books? Really?

lol, you obviously haven't read as much as you think about plate tectonics, geology, etc.

I'm not going to rehash everything I've referenced about these topics again on this thread, read the many threads on the politics forum about this, the thread about Noah's Ark in this forum, etc.

I've discussed these topics dozens of times on these forums and never once used the Bible as a scientific resource or proof, so please spare me that lecture.

Mooney44Cards wrote:



Ahhh, but you use the Bible as basis for your beliefs. So rather than starting from scratch and saying "I don't know the answer" you came from a background of "God created the world in 7 days" and fit your scientific beliefs to that theory.

If the Bible were taken out of the equation, no scientist or person on earth would be trying to argue that the earth is 5000 years old, so I don't buy it. Those who say the earth is billions of years old had no bias going in, or at least weren't out to prove that some insane statement in an old book was true.