• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

First known animal that does not require oxygen to survive. So much for "breath of Life".


Veteran Member
Since I do not believe there is a God, and I do not believe in destiny, then no.

Destiny and God are not the concern of science. If you wish to believe in them, that is your choice, but science has no say in those.
This is a sign of G-d that Science cannot reach Him. Right, please?



Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
The natural word "fact" has nothing to do with what one has described above.
What one has described is a later term used by philosophy/science, not a natural word, please.

"fact (n.)
1530s, "action, anything done," especially "evil deed," from Latin factum "an event, occurrence, deed, achievement," in Medieval Latin also "state, condition, circumstance," literally "thing done" (source also of Old French fait, Spanish hecho, Italian fatto), noun use of neuter of factus, past participle of facere "to do" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put"). Main modern sense of "thing known to be true" is from 1630s, from notion of "something that has actually occurred."

Compare feat, which is an earlier adoption of the same word via French. Facts "real state of things (as distinguished from a statement of belief)" is from 1630s. In fact "in reality" is from 1707. Facts of life "harsh realities" is from 1854; euphemistic sense of "human sexual functions" first recorded 1913. Alliterative pairing of facts and figures is from 1727"

fact | Search Online Etymology Dictionary
This is daft. From your own sources, the term "fact" has meant what I implied by it ever since the c.17th.

If we all went around using words in the senses they had in c.16th English, we would get into a terrible muddle.

Your notion of a "natural" word appears to be meaningless.


Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
This is a sign of G-d that Science cannot reach Him. Right, please?


IF there is one, then science has been able to find no evidence of such. So, IF you think there is one, then such a thing is currently beyond science (and thereby everybody).


H. salminicola: Scientists discover first animal that doesn't breathe

Yet another example to show that the Bible is not a science book.

All the same, it's quite an amazing find and opens the possibility for life elsewhere in the universe even outside environments with oxygen atmospheres.

Nature itself is a lot more fascinating and amazing then running around with conceived religious beliefs.

I figured if some religious had their way, this information would have been suppressed.
Can you give chapter and verse in the bible where it says salminicola should breath?