• 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!

Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The standard response on my part is based on the actual content of your posts,

Again . . . It has to do with your ignorance of science and a religious agenda. The evidence in your posts is abundantly clear when you cite the Bible to justify your agenda and ignorance of science.
No evidence, all conjecture from what scientists view as evidence. Thank you so much for proving that neither you nor those purporting evolution of the Darwinian kind do not know reality. Thanks again.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Why do you say I have a bias against science? Science cannot use the evidence for God, it being more subjective than objective, and so it keeps plodding on looking for naturalistic explanation for life and even presumes that life has a naturalistic explanation only and defines life that way. But don't get me wrong, as you usually do, I'm not saying science is wrong for doing that, in fact that is all science can do. BUT as I was saying to TagliatelliMonster we humans should be able to tell what science is doing and not let it fool us into thinking that it is always telling us the truth when it comes to whether things happened naturally of not.
You seem to go the way of thinking it is always telling us the truth about if things happened naturally or not. Maybe you have forgotten that science is not us and we can actually judge science based on the further evidence we use to tell us whether there is supernatural or not.
Shunydragon likes to insult those that disagree with him. No evidence. One day the game will be up. For that some of us can be thankful.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The process takes millions of years, and millions of years ago. In terms of 'real' science yes, we have genetic and extensive fossil evidence of many intermediate species in the proper order in the stratigraphic record.





It has to do with your ignorance of science and a religious agenda.





Atheism has nothing to do with science.
It could. Meantime, have you found God? Exactly what is your Bahai belief based on? Desire to believe in God? Belief that Bahaullah got real messages from God?
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
A positive attitude toward science is needed and not an in-depth knowledge of science. The high school level of science is sufficient. Reader's Digest knowledge of science does not work when the above bold reflects your extreme bias against science. If you read my posts I specifically described how science works concerning the knowledge of our physical existence and its limits. It is very specific and simple.

Shunydragon likes to insult those that disagree with him. No evidence. One day the game will be up. For that some of us can be thankful.
There is nothing in the post to which you're referring that constitutes the insult.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It could. Meantime, have you found God? Exactly what is your Bahai belief based on? Desire to believe in God? Belief that Bahaullah got real messages from God?

I believe in a Creator God and the Baha'i Faith which endorses science as science and the natural nature of our existence reflecting the attributes o God in the universe. This is not the subject of the thread. There are no contradictions in the knowledge of science and how God Created our universe.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
LOL, my first outloud laugh today. Thanks!

Don't thank me your problems are self inflicted. Laugh at yourself if it makes you feel any better. Apparently, you do not understand nor know the definition of 'proof' nor have any knowledge of science beyond your religious agenda.

By the way it is acceptable to request of you scientific references to support your assertions concerning what science can and cannot determine concerning the physical nature of our existence.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Don't thank me your problems are self inflicted. Laugh at yourself if it makes you feel any better. Apparently, you do not understand nor know the definition of 'proof' nor have any knowledge of science beyond your religious agenda.
You're still making me laugh -- no explanations, only insults...
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I believe in a Creator God and the Baha'i Faith which endorses science as science and the natural nature of our existence reflecting the attributes o God in the universe. This is not the subject of the thread. There are no contradictions in the knowledge of science and how God Created our universe.
Really??? now that's worth an explanation from you, maybe you can explain to @ChristineM and a few others here why you think Bahaullah had messages from god.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Really??? now that's worth an explanation from you, maybe you can explain to @ChristineM and a few others here why you think Bahaullah had messages from god.

SlipperyAcclaimedKob-size_restricted.gif


I'd be just as interested as you.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Why is it that experts in biology should know how life began and where life came from and what caused life and more than someone with an uneducated opinion?
I imagine that an expert in biology has been educated to believe a certain thing about the beginnings of life but how did the teachers learn these things?

It is not just biology that @YoursTrue brought up in the OP. He or she also brought up chemistry (eg “matters”, “molecules”, “elements”) and physics (eg “basic elements”, which could either “atom” or “elementary particles” like quarks, electrons, neutrinos, photons, etc).

If YoursTrue truly wanted to talk about only biology, he should have written the OP focusing on organic matters, like proteins, lipids, DNA, etc.

Reread the OP. It not really very organized post, especially his 2nd paragraph, just further demonstrate he is really not good with any science subject, with loaded questions, hiding his poorly hidden (and very biased) agenda of the Creator element or the Designer element.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
What we are talking about is really abiogenesis. Is there evidence that no intelligence was needed for the beginnings of life or is that just a presumption of yours and of science?
If there is evidence, do you know what that evidence is?

Yes, the real subject should be Abiogenesis, not on Evolution.

But if you look at any scientific theories (as well as falsifiable hypotheses) - whether it be biology, physics, chemistry, Earth science or astronomy - every single one of these models only focused on the natural phenomena and the natural processes.

God, divine power, creation, miracles, etc are not natural phenomena - don’t belong in nature.

And evidence required it to be observed, measured, tested, etc.

Can anyone and everyone “observe” god, “measure” god, “test” god?

Can anyone just go up to god, and see how it work?

You do understand the repeatability of experiments, don’t you?

In any hypothesis or theory, if the author (scientist who either one of them), have performed some experiments, his hypothesis or hypothesis theory should include instructions as to HOW he or she perform experiments.

The purpose of including instruction how the experiment can be carried out, is so that any independent scientists can repeat the experiment, to see for themselves if the experiment work, and to verify IF the test results support the hypothesis or theory, or DID the experiment refute the hypothesis or theory.

So if God can create living human from non-living dust, then any scientists should be able to repeat this “creation” of man from dust.

The fact of matters is that dust cannot instantly turn into a living adult human being. That sort of things involved the supernatural, magic.

So go back to the original question. The answer is “no”.

There are no evidence for god, and there are no evidence that god have the power to create anything.

You cannot observe, measure or test god.

Biology isn’t the only science that don’t investigate the supernatural. Physics, chemistry and many others also don’t include god in their respective theories, because god cannot be observed, measured or tested.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
No evidence, all conjecture from what scientists view as evidence. Thank you so much for proving that neither you nor those purporting evolution of the Darwinian kind do not know reality. Thanks again.

You are ignorant of science and your religious agenda is appallingly apparent and not a rational basis for your argument in this thread.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You are ignorant of science and your religious agenda is appallingly apparent and not a rational basis for your argument in this thread.
Once again, the rational basis for the fact that evolution and/or abiogenesis are construed notions by scientists is evidenced by the evidence. :). In other words, putting it together is construed by those who want to try to fill in the holes in the puzzle with possibilities. But the actualities are simply not there.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
If scientists were to create life 'from mixing chemicals in the right environment', would you accept that life is just chemistry and physics?
"Scientists" putting together certain factors and then claiming they have created life is not true. It is fictional, despite the chemical reactions that they claim to have caused by introducing certain factors in the experiment. They haven't and never will "create life."
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
"Scientists" putting together certain factors and then claiming they have created life is not true. It is fictional, despite the chemical reactions that they claim to have caused by introducing certain factors in the experiment. They haven't and never will "create life."
These three sentences don't make any sense. Plus you're making a claim about something being impossible without demonstrating such.

You have no idea how science operates, and it shows. You don't understand evolution, and you don't want to. That's apparent.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Once again, the rational basis for the fact that evolution and/or abiogenesis are construed notions by scientists is evidenced by the evidence. :). In other words, putting it together is construed by those who want to try to fill in the holes in the puzzle with possibilities. But the actualities are simply not there.
Please cite scientific references to support this and not assertions based on a religious agenda,
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Please cite scientific references to support this and not assertions based on a religious agenda,
1. It is not necessarily a religious agenda, although the evidence is there, or shall we say, not there in full view. The fossils themselves are evidence of non-evolutionary powers. All you have to do is think rather than surmise. Such as that which some do when trying to figure that Jesus did not foretell the destruction of Jerusalem. See? The odds are less than even. Meaning the odds of no-evolution are greater than those of no prophetic warning. (Much greater.)
 
Top