YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
(lol) As I said, or think I said (lol), maybe they'll figure it out some day. (I doubt it.)I noticed that too, in my Web searches on this topic.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
(lol) As I said, or think I said (lol), maybe they'll figure it out some day. (I doubt it.)I noticed that too, in my Web searches on this topic.
(lol) As I said, or think I said (lol), maybe they'll figure it out some day. (I doubt it.)
Additionally, except, of course, in reportedly three cases (and I say reportedly since it is written, there were no human eyewitnesses to Adam's creation, but I believe it as written), Adam--no meeting of sperm and egg needed--and Eve (similarly with her) and Jesus Christ, since his birth as well as the other two, were made-designed-created by God the Almighty, who can do such wondrous things.You know what's interesting in relation to your question? It's that when scientists taught recapitulation regarding human growth in the womb, it was taught as truth, and to deny it would undoubtedly cause a little rumble in a school. But then later it was taught that it just isn't so -- that a fetus does not go through every stage of evolution in the womb until it, of course, evolves supposedly into a human being and, not a fish let's say at a certain point in the womb. But it takes two cells to tango causing a baby to be develop in the woman. That, of course, of the male, and female. It's amazing, is it not? (I think so...) Irreducibly two cells to make a baby.
I don't. But I also see that you can't say what is the first "living matter." I guess no scientist really knows. But I was curious and so I asked here of those who believe in evolution. It actually has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but you made it so.
So far no one saw the first living thing that was. No report. No one saw the second living thing come about. No one knows. But they say these living things did come about, they say there was a time they weren't there, don't they? In other words, that life on this planet was not.I see you're a believer in the Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps.
An unknown in science does not lend credence to unsupported myths.
I noticed that too, in my Web searches on this topic.There are also definitional problems for the very early stages ...
A brief search showed me that definitions for bacteria are that these things are alive, while viruses are not. It's quite amazing.Well, we know simple bacterial existed 3.8 billion years ago. What sort of life existed prior to that, we do not know.
There are also definitional problems for the very early stages (what, precisely, does it mean to be alive?).
So far no one saw the first living thing that was. No report. No one saw the second living thing come about. No one knows. But they say these living things did come about, they say there was a time they weren't there, don't they? In other words, that life on this planet was not.
A brief search showed me that definitions for bacteria are that these things are alive, while viruses are not. It's quite amazing.
Furthermore, diagrams of bacteria show me they are not like nothing. Or a blank, so to speak. They are defined and in my opinion, complicated. One might say they came about by themselves, but imo, they are small but complex. Irreducible? I'll leave that up to you in reference to evolution to work on.
Oh brother.....I disagree.
So you think it's perfectly fine to accuse a group of scientists of being irresponsible and dishonest in their work, even though you haven't read their work. That doesn't speak well of you.If the behavior you’re talking about is saying what I thought from reading the earlier abstract and the blog post, and refusing to submit to anyone’s demands to Substantiate Or Retract, then I disagree that it was unethical.
But it's just fine for you to accuse others of being dishonest and unethical?What I’m reporting now for example is people repeatedly accusing me of trolling, dishonesty and unethical behavior, in posts addressed to me.
You are correct that this was once an explanation in science, but the scope that you are trying give it is unreasonable. This is ancient history that was subjected to the continual review of science to the point that it was understood to be invalid.You know what's interesting in relation to your question? It's that when scientists taught recapitulation regarding human growth in the womb, it was taught as truth, and to deny it would undoubtedly cause a little rumble in a school. But then later it was taught that it just isn't so -- that a fetus does not go through every stage of evolution in the womb until it, of course, evolves supposedly into a human being and, not a fish let's say at a certain point in the womb. But it takes two cells to tango causing a baby to be develop in the woman. That, of course, of the male, and female. It's amazing, is it not? (I think so...) Irreducibly two cells to make a baby.
I encourage you to learn more about all these things related to evolution. Consider irreducible complexity. Why do you find it so compelling? Is it really as good an explanation as you think it is or is there some other reasons for clinging to it?A brief search showed me that definitions for bacteria are that these things are alive, while viruses are not. It's quite amazing.
Furthermore, diagrams of bacteria show me they are not like nothing. Or a blank, so to speak. They are defined and in my opinion, complicated. One might say they came about by themselves, but imo, they are small but complex. Irreducible? I'll leave that up to you in reference to evolution to work on.
The mechanisms of reproduction are incredibly diverse. The union of two cells as carried out in humans is common, but far from the only way that it can occur. Given that there are multiple mechanisms, a claim of irreducible complexity is unwarranted.You know what's interesting in relation to your question? It's that when scientists taught recapitulation regarding human growth in the womb, it was taught as truth, and to deny it would undoubtedly cause a little rumble in a school. But then later it was taught that it just isn't so -- that a fetus does not go through every stage of evolution in the womb until it, of course, evolves supposedly into a human being and, not a fish let's say at a certain point in the womb. But it takes two cells to tango causing a baby to be develop in the woman. That, of course, of the male, and female. It's amazing, is it not? (I think so...) Irreducibly two cells to make a baby.
Upon close examination of most creationists assertions and arguments, most of them turn out to be some form of God of the Gaps/Default argument.I see you're a believer in the Incredible Shrinking God of the Gaps.
An unknown in science does not lend credence to unsupported myths.
When you claim "believe" and associate it with the theory and facts of evolution, what do you mean by that?I don't. But I also see that you can't say what is the first "living matter." I guess no scientist really knows. But I was curious and so I asked here of those who believe in evolution. It actually has nothing to do with abiogenesis, but you made it so.
I also note that your use of irreducible is plastic and you are using differing versions as if they go back to a single, static definition.You know what's interesting in relation to your question? It's that when scientists taught recapitulation regarding human growth in the womb, it was taught as truth, and to deny it would undoubtedly cause a little rumble in a school. But then later it was taught that it just isn't so -- that a fetus does not go through every stage of evolution in the womb until it, of course, evolves supposedly into a human being and, not a fish let's say at a certain point in the womb. But it takes two cells to tango causing a baby to be develop in the woman. That, of course, of the male, and female. It's amazing, is it not? (I think so...) Irreducibly two cells to make a baby.
So far no one saw the first living thing that was. No report. No one saw the second living thing come about. No one knows. But they say these living things did come about, they say there was a time they weren't there, don't they? In other words, that life on this planet was not.
That’s a good start. Now maybe you’ll start noticing people doing that with some other words, on all sides of all debating.I also note that your use of irreducible is plastic and you are using differing versions as if they go back to a single, static definition.