Are there really "facts"? Is everything a theory, or an interpretation of events through the human mind?

Fact:

there are no oil wells in hawaii.

OR is it that you believe there are no oil wells in Hawaii, thus there are no oil wells in Hawaii? No facts anywhere, ever. Only an interpretation of that which we believe to know.

I'm just being an ass btw, I agree with science, being a market researcher and all.

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.

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.

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.

FIrst off a political thread has nothing to do with this.

you are guilty of
Poisoning the well fallacy


They did build the genome from scratch.

You are completely wrong.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5981/958

YES they created the genome from scratch and then put it into a dead cell that was not alive and now we have a LIVING cell.

YES WE HAVE CREATED LIFE.

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?

Yes we have built a complete genome from scratch.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5981/958

and
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1190719

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.

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

Some atheists are just as bad as evangelists

I know, right???

There are just as many religious/belief zealouts as there are no-religion/belief zealouts.

Period.

This thread is a shining example.

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.

my bad.

like i said. i'm done arguing this fact. i have no dog in this fight.


it is pretty cool though what the op was talking about.

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.

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?

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?

this is where i stand. the bible to me is a farce, but it's not impossible for there to be a god.

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?

Where did I say I "pick and choose" which science to use/believe? Being a scientist myself I LOVE science and math. I just point out the FACT that most of the science behind "millions of years" has some severe biased "holes" in it. From radiometric dating to fossil records, there are many biases in there.

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.

Am I "biased"? Possibly, but I'm also willing to look at both sides of the scientific debate while others only look at one and automatically assume the other is wrong.

However if you think that most of the science behind proteins to human evolution is NOT biased then you are in the dark, you really are.

All I've said, over and over, is that millions of years, while possible, is not scientific fact. There are other viable scientific reasons/theories that point to a "young" earth as well.

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.

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:

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.

i'm not read up on the bible enough to be pissed about the mistakes i make in referencing it. the science though is just you being bullheaded (IMO) like i said, i'm done. you have your opinion, i have mine. agree to disagree.

and the only reason i mentioned the volcanic rocks was because that was your example.

also you're correct that SOME reservoirs would be deposited fast enough for them to not require at least 10's of millions years. but MOST were not deposited that fast (the Berea Sandstone for example).

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.

Ah. I am a mixed bag kinda guy. I believe in God and everything, but that's not to say that scientists are right. You are correct, there is no mutual exclusivity between God and science. I loved the shows on Discovery Channel where they scientifically show how certain things in the bible happened. Like the parting of the red sea, sure, they found a shallow land bridge, but the winds would have had to have been swirling and super strong.

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.

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.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=287134

Jmog, since you want to discuss radiometric dating I thought I would send an invitation.

Join up and teach us all about radiometric dating.

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.

I know several mathematician and I, myself am only 3 classes short of being one myself (though I'm woefully out of practice) and no mathematician would tell you that it's statistically impossible when dealing with the time frame scientist use to discuss evolution. Anything is statistically possible in the proper time frame!

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.

With that thread, I realized I was completely out of my league and that it was completely ridiculous to argue on a topic I'd just learned about and mostly just skimmed the avaliable data, but I wanted to give you a proper response, so I decided to contact a GIS Specialist friend of mine that works for USGS, and she put me in contact with a Geologist. The Geologist gave me some great resources as well as one question I had only just thought about asking. Then he put me in contact with a geophysicist which gave me the real reasons as to why your Catastrophic Plate Theory was not remotely possible.

After I got in contact with everyone I started a response, but did not post it since the thread pretty much just died and I didn't want to look bitter by resurrecting a thread that had died, but since you bring it up here I feel that I should at least get what I've learned about that topic out there, so that others won't believe something so fantastically ridiculous is actually possible.

I'm only able to get away with so much at work, so most of my research was done at home so my response is at home. When I get home I'll be sure to post it and await your response.

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.

Oh, but you are so wrong as you don't know me at all. There most definitely was a time I questioned everything and started from a "I have no idea what happened" point of view. When I started to look at the origins questions I most certainly, coming from a scientific background all through college, did NOT start from a Biblical view. You are wrong there.

Bad assumption on your part.

And you are again wrong that there is no "bias" in the scientists behind the other origin theories (evolution, etc).

Please, you know how many "missing link" fossils have been found to be 100% hoaxes due to the person who "found" it wanting to prove evolution so bad they would fake fossils to do it?

If you don't believe that there is a bias in this form of science, then you are blind, next you'll tell me there is no bias in global warming science.

This is like the Nickelback debate.