YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
LOL, my first outloud laugh today. Thanks!His response was genuine reflecting your inability to communicate coherently in science and the English language.
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, my first outloud laugh today. Thanks!His response was genuine reflecting your inability to communicate coherently in science and the English language.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.
There is nothing in the post to which you're referring that constitutes the insult.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.
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?
LOL, my first outloud laugh today. Thanks!
You're still making me laugh -- no explanations, only insults...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.
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.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.
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?
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?
So science can never say that life is just chemistry and physics until it creates life from mixing chemicals in the right environment.
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.
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.You are ignorant of science and your religious agenda is appallingly apparent and not a rational basis for your argument in this thread.
"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."If scientists were to create life 'from mixing chemicals in the right environment', would you accept that life is just chemistry and physics?
These three sentences don't make any sense. Plus you're making a claim about something being impossible without demonstrating such."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."
Please cite scientific references to support this and not assertions based on a religious agenda,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.
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.)Please cite scientific references to support this and not assertions based on a religious agenda,
So do you believe the assertion that scientists have created life?Please cite scientific references to support this and not assertions based on a religious agenda,