Moontanman

And now for something completely different.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYyxcn7oerQ

Do you still want to discuss abiogenesis or is this just sarcasm? If you want I can provide some really good videos by some very knowledgeable people, scientists even, or I can go with links to articles and papers on the subject. here is a good place to start, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis Personally i think it was almost certainly a synergy of more than one process that became life as we know it.... Let me know if you want to go forward with this, I am intensely interested in this and I have lots of information to share.

Your inability to believe has no bearing on reality. You are so far behind the current research on the subject, and just because science cannot at this time explain something doesn't mean God Did it. This is called the god of the gaps and those gaps that this idea pushes god into get smaller every day. unless you are willing to give up your god belief if science is able to full those gaps this reason is totally dishonest. At one time lightning was considered proof of god, bolts of lightning were gods wrath, it never explained why tall trees and church steeples seemed to get god wrath more often that anything else but once lightning was explained god had to creep into ever smaller gaps. This is very disingenuous reason to believe. This is a total strawman argument, there is in fact some very good scientific evidence to back up abiogenesis, none to back up creation by a god. Thomas Heinze is a Christian apologist, your book is meaningless, he has an agenda that has nothing to do with evidence or even truth. The only religious text that contains specific prophecies? you confirmed this how? Show some evidence of this, i am very familiar with the bible and there is not only no evidence for god in the bible there is no evidence for that particular god either. I have done research and your bible fails totally, your bible is no better or worse than any of the rest of the worlds holy books, many of which are far older and more complex than the holy bible. This is not evidence of anything but coincidence. Again, your own baseless assertions , nothing more. And I've heard of many people of many different religions also having such moments of clarity as have many non believers too, this is not evidence of anything other than something you believe you felt. And none of them are evidence of anything other than your own beliefs, faith, and lack of understanding, nothing more.

Looks like the Romans had everything but the propeller... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_technology

I'd like to suggest something to Thomas Kelly guessed, start a thread about something not having to do with religion. Get used to how the forum works by discussing something of the world you are interested in or parts of science want to know more about. once you establish your self in the forum and understand how it works you might be able to more effectively discuss religion or your questions about religion... You have have made statements several times that suggest you mistrust science in general or scientists as individuals and you suggested that a scientist cannot be religious or that science is a belief of some sort or that the body of knowledge known as science is in some way dishonest. These things are false, yes individuals can be dishonest, if you are honest then you know this is true of religious people as well but I am sure you would agree that just because one religious person is dishonest doesn't make all religious people dishonest, so to suggest that all scientists are dishonest is simply wrong. In fact science and scientists in general insist on the truth, all claims in science are checked and rechecked to make sure that the claims are as factual as possible. Explore some topics not directly religious and see how accurate science can be, think of the computer you are seated in front of as you read this post. The computer you are using to question science is the result of that science, in fact the entire first world civilization is based on and the result of Science but not just becasue some guy claims, "yeah, electrons behave this way under these circumstances" but in the fact that any claims, discoveries, yes the whole of modern knowledge is testable, almost any of it can be tested to see if it indeed works and the parts that most of us cannot test can be read about and see that it is confirmed by more than one person. The results of that science is due to it being true, the behavior of the universe can be tested, confirmed, and understood (in large part at least) by anyone. try it Thomas Kelly

Do you realize that what you suggest is having advanced technology and only using a tiny part of it... right? To make a dynamo to make electricity to power an electric motor to run a ship using human power? I'm not sure I understand why you would want to ignore all the technology that would come with generators and dynamos and such... I'm really not sure the technology you want to use could exist in a vacuum lacking all the other aspects of relevant technology. BTW, I'm not saying it's impossible, it is an interesting idea, at one time the effects of lode stones was considered to be "magic" I'm just not sure how much you could use magnetism with out all the other parts of technology it takes to do things like make rail guns or generators....a refrigerator magnet is evidence of just as much technology as the refrigerator...

Sadly naturally occurring magnets cannot do any of the things you desire. Magnetism was indeed discovered before the steam engine, they were indeed revolutionary, magnets changed the world, they were used to make compasses...

Thomas Kelly, I live in a hurricane zone, we've already had two tropical storms, your question is nonsensical. No one ever just suddenly claims a hurricane is coming, the very idea of such an unsupported claim is ridiculous. Many days before the storm you get weather reports, satellite images, radar images of the approaching storm, you can measure the slow drop in atmospheric pressure, the increasing surf, the incessant wind that comes from only one quarter. Hurricanes have real physical evidence of their coming and going, the New Testament is just some tales the Catholic church put together by popular vote about 1600 years ago. How can you possibly compare the reality of an approaching hurricane to a book about myths?

You should try NC legislators... dumb as stumps... hateful as a grizzly bear with syphilis... seriously, some of the political ads I've seen lately are better than SNL comedy routines... except they are seriously scary...

It's not evidence for what the book asserts or says.

i am getting read to go to a movie and dinner with my wife but when i get back I'll be glad to provide you with some really good science around the origin of life... Lets not derail iNow's thread any more than we have already , start an origin of life thread and we can discuss this when I get back.

Appolinaria, you are quite mistaken and i am disappointed in your line of argument here. I've seen you do quite a bit better in these discussions. You seem to be insisting on clinging to things that are simply not true, strawmen at best. And these hypotheses about the origin of life have been discussed in other threads in great detail. First of all there is no spark of life, the idea of some sort of special thing called "spark of life" was discredited centuries ago. There is nothing special about life that cannot be explained by chemistry. 50 years ago you could have accurately said that the beginning of life was mysterious but even then we had some pretty good hypothesis. Now we have some very good science that describes what we think the beginning of life was and how it happened. This idea that Science has no idea about the beginning of life is absolutely false. The beginning of life cannot be described as accurately as the diversification of life has been explained but the beginning of life is no longer even close to being a complete mystery. I don't want to throw this thread of topic but saying that the beginning of life is somehow a huge impenetrable mystery is simply not true...

Come on dude, I know when something is above my pay grade, that's why i asked, you suggested that Mars would form a magnetic field if it had an denser atmosphere then you gave links but the links didn't support your opinion at all, in fact never mentioned it. Why would you expect mars to generate a magnetic field if it had a substantial atmosphere? I could see how spinning the moon, if it still has a molten core might generate a magnetic field, but why would mars?

More on that http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs/20051031/elephant.html Sorry , no intent to go off topic.

I would have to agree, elephants are the first species to come to mind. They do have some sense of their own mortality even going as far as identifying the bones of not just other elephants but those they knew as friends and or members of their own family groups. They have a language and communicate to each other using infra sound as well as sound within the range of human hearing. . http://www.elephantvoices.org/elephant-communication/acoustic-communication.html

More word games Thomas? So far everyone here has treated you honorably, to suggest otherwise with no reason other than he doesn't agree with you is a bit disingenuous don't you think? Again, your assertion is the positive one, i simply see no reason to believe, no evidence of god, no belief in god, I do not claim there is no god, i say there is no evidence for god. So far you have shown no evidence for god, only in your belief in your particular god myth. If there is no evidence something exists the default position is that it does not exist. Evidence that stood up to skeptical inquiry would immediately change that stance but the writings of men about god are not evidence of the existence of god. If you insist they are then you have to show why the writings of your particular god are true and all the others are not. I suggest you quite making childish threats no one is interested in and do some research into reality...

pantheory, i see nothing in either of those links to support this assertion (sentence in bold)

All that exists is simply evidence of all that exists not evidence of some imaginary deity. You cannot even show that any deity or deities exist at all much less the one you are claiming to have evidence of, you have to understand that your particular Holy book or books are not evidence of anything other than what the humans who wrote them thought, imagined, copied, or lied about to use to control others and give themselves stature they didn't deserve. Why is your god or idea of god any better than Zeus, Thor, Odin, Ra, Adriana, or any of the millions of other gods or goddesses everyone is an atheist of far as they are concerned?

Which ones?

Thomas Kelly, you need to understand what evidence is before you start asserting you have some... I'm guessing preaching, it's definitely not discussing...

Then again maybe not... In this context broken is referring to believing in something with no evidence, using faith to make decisions about reality. What does any of these things have to do with the existence of Evil or contradictions in the bible? Of course I do, when they've earned my trust. No it is not, to prove such a thing you would have to have god like knowledge. If a scientist had proof of the existence or non existence of god they would indeed publish this evidence. Do like arguing against strawmen? To be an atheist does not mean you have evidence god does not exist, it means you see no evidence that god does exist. To be a scientist does not mean you do not believe in god, you seriously need to do some research, so far you have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of your own assertions. Asserting something is not evidence it is correct. Simply claiming or asserting something is not evidence it is true. Such an assertion is easily falsified... I see no evidence of any god or gods existing, not just the myths of the Holy bible. The bible is a book about mythology, tales about what bronze age men though god was. because it's fiction and fiction can say anything you want? The god described in the Holy Bible is a pathological monster... Maybe all of it is. And some people have neither. I can show much of the bible to be false, can you show any of it to be true? The bible is not proof of anything it is full of things that either could not possibly have happened and things that paint a picture of a horrible god that does and demands horrific things. you asked a question in the thread, anyone can post and answer...

No, obviously not everyone, but I do... I think it's self evident, few if any people would believe anything with the same lack of skepticism they use when believing religion. That's not the way science works, you make a positive assertion that god exists, then you have to provide evidence of that. Proving that a god or gods do not exist is like proving leprechauns do not exist. For leprechauns to be taken seriously you must show they do exist, proving they do not exist is not possible. Again see the above, but yes if you had bothered to look around the site you would have see evidence to support that god is illogical and cannot exist as described in the bible. I looked, it made for a very poor argument. I am sure you will find this much to your own surprise but many people around here are very well versed in religious texts including your Holy Bible and the arguments used by apologists to justify those texts... Small instances like the ones you point out are insignificant when compared to things like Noah's flood, genesis, rape, murder, genocide, child rape, slavery, sexual slavery, killing of children, the bible is full of this stuff. If you use the bible as evidence of god then god is a psychopathic monster... No they use them to attract peoples attention, something not necessary when posting in threads.

This is a good one...

I think it could be said that humans and dogs have evolved together. I have always loved dogs, the ability to bond with them is higher in some humans that others but over the course of my life dogs have saved me from at least bodily harm at least 4 times and protected my children several times as well. For the last 35 years they've all been basset hounds. Dogs are really great companions, protectors, and family members. I am certain that the relationship has molded dogs to understand us quite possibly even think as we do, they certainly know how to read us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88lmVxvRaXU