Truth is not abuse. Learn the diff. Name any quote in context that was not highly true and appropriate? By the way, the title of the thread seems abusive to me! ‘cowardly’? ‘blasts’? Or is abuse OK when against innocents of God or Christians? By the way, of course people prophesy here and make predictions such as on the issue of global warming, or the future of the universe etc etc. The issue is whether such prophesy offered as science can be supported and not just empty prophesy. Asking people to do so or point out that is what they are doing is anything but abuse.
Clever turn of phrases, brilliant! On second thought it is a little pathetic that someone has to resort to such lame attempts of humor without making a cogent argument.What is to argue in regards to alieogenesis when you offer nothing? Want to produce the first lifeform? or..?
Better be careful, you might offend some of your modern fellow worshipers and be excommunicated talking about the Pope like that when he was addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in his official capacity as Magisterium and spokesman for God!
Sorry I don’t follow the guy. Everything I hear from him seems to be like pagan nonsense. I also do not agree with the mass molestation of children and all I would want to hear from the leader of an outfit involved in that is that they are selling all they have and giving to victims and the poor and going out and looking to join an actual bible believing church!
And much worse, you may become known as an ignorant fool who is unable to see the allegorical nature of scripture and refuses to recognize truth when it stares him in the face.The reality and truth of Scripture cannot be waved away as fiction/allegory/fables by people who chose not to believe it for what Jesus said Scripture was.
You just have no idea that all you have is a God of the gaps which have not yet been filled by science.Explain what a gap is supposed to be and how it applies? Ha
If you want to preach moral messages contained in Scripture you are welcome and I may even join you in some of that effort. But please stay away from science.Creation is not a moral message is it? The issue is why a religion (so called science) preaches against it, rather than sticking to it's little pagan 'morals' like origin fables, climate fear mongering etc etc.
What is to argue in regards to alieogenesis when you offer nothing? Want to produce the first lifeform? or..?Sure, but your question is already skewed. Abiogenesis is not then it was chemical, then it was alive. There were hierarchical stages of being both,
We still have such organisms among us. They’re called viruses, not quite alive, but more than just being chemical. An intermediate stage.
Prior to that there are purely chemical molecules that “eat” other chemicals.
Here is a non-living organism that eats living bacteria; Bacteriophage.
Bacteriophage
Atomic structural model of bacteriophage T4
The structure of a typical myovirus bacteriophage
A bacteriophage (/bækˈtɪərioʊfeɪdʒ/), also known informally as a phage (/ˈfeɪdʒ/), is a virus that infects and replicates within bacteria and archaea. The term was derived from "bacteria" and the Greek φαγεῖν (phagein), meaning "to devour". Bacteriophages are composed of proteins that encapsulate a DNA or RNA genome, and may have structures that are either simple or elaborate. Their genomes may encode as few as four genes (e.g. MS2) and as many as hundreds of genes. Phages replicate within the bacterium following the injection of their genome into its cytoplasm.
Bacteriophages are among the most common and diverse entities in the biosphere.[1] Bacteriophages are ubiquitous viruses, found wherever bacteria exist. It is estimated there are more than 1031 bacteriophages on the planet, more than every other organism on Earth, including bacteria, combined.[2] Viruses are the most abundant biological entity in the water column of the world's oceans, and the second largest component of biomass after prokaryotes,[3] where up to 9x108 virions per millilitre have been found in microbial mats at the surface,[4] and up to 70% of marine bacteria may be infected by phages.[5]Now do you see that life is not a rare phenomenon. The moment there was chemical interaction , the potential for Abiogenesis became probabilistic.
Phages have been used since the late 20th century as an alternative to antibiotics in the former Soviet Union and Central Europe, as well as in France.[6][7] They are seen as a possible therapy against multi-drug-resistant strains of many bacteria (see phage therapy).[8] On the other hand, phages of Inoviridae have been shown to complicate biofilms involved in pneumonia and cystic fibrosis and to shelter the bacteria from drugs meant to eradicate disease, thus promoting persistent infection.[9]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage
Explain what a gap is supposed to be and how it applies? HaA gap is that very small part of knowledge of origins with is yet unknown or specualive. That is the part where your god dwells. An example is the BB. We know this happened, how it happened and when it happened. We just don't know why it happened . You could make an argument that God is the original causality. But that still does not validate the Judeo/Christian scriptures which do not qualify for the title of scientific instruments.
NOW dad, where is your supporting proof of anything you have posted. I bet you don’t have ANY proofs of anything.
Instead of trying to ignore and bury the proofs and links I have provided, and then have the gall to accuse me of not providing proof , man up and provide proof of your claims, if you have any!
Until then, you are on my ignore list. bye bye…
Abiogenesis is not then it was chemical, then it was alive.Prove it. That is woulda coulda shoulda speculation based on ...seemingly nothing.
There were hierarchical stages of being both,
Prove it! Show the evidence for those stages and prove that said evidence represents only what must have been stages rather than separate critters?
We still have such organisms among us.Totally irrelevant. Adam had trees we have trees. The first man had water, we have water. Merely having a variety of organisms does not mean Adam or anyone else came from such things! Total fable.
They’re called viruses, not quite alive, but more than just being chemical. An intermediate stage.
They have been around a long time. Prove they are intermediate?
Prior to that there are purely chemical molecules that “eat” other chemicals.Total statement of faith. Prove it! You might as well say the big bang monster ate the spaghetti monster.
Here is a non-living organism that eats living bacteria; Bacteriophage.? So what? God made all sorts of creatures big and small, and is it a surprise that they eat?? Just because some little thingie eats does not mean that Marilyn Monroe was a result of billions of these thingies congealed to form a woman! All it means is that there are many types of creatures, big and small.
A gap is that very small part of knowledge of origins with is yet unknown or specualive.Too bad all origin sciences is belief based and anything but known then eh?
That is the part where your god dwells.Wrong. God is KNOWN of His people. Your gappy sappy so called science is full of holes and belief based fables.
An example is the BB. We know this happened, how it happened and when it happened.
You know nothing of the foolish sort. You believe real hard. The BB really is an ignorant fable. I can tell you why. I know the basis for it. But you have already run off as you need to hide from the truth and ignore it.
We just don’t know why it happened . You could make an argument that God is the original causality.False. There is no way to correlate the BB fable with creation as told in Scripture. One example is that earth was here before the stars were made. There is no meeting of lie and truth, no way to correlate them.
NOW dad, where is your supporting proof of anything you have posted. I bet you don’t have ANY proofs of anything.I pointed out that origin models are faith based and the proof is your fail to show otherwise!
Instead of trying to ignore and bury the proofs and links I have provided,You have no proofs and if you post links do so for support of a case you make, not as a silly reading/viewing assignment.
Until then, you are on my ignore list. bye bye….
Saves me time in demolishing posts that fail I guess. Tks.
Dad1, take a break. You have been warned about repetitious posting. One more and you’re done.
Hmmm, Dad’s angry nasty angels are coming to the fore.
@Dad1 Too bad all origin sciences is belief based and anything but known then eh?"Belief Based"
It’s a perfect introduction into why it’s so important to openly grapple with
appreciating the Human Mindscape ~ Physical Reality divide.Of course, Dad1 is correct, belief is at the core of being a functioning living creature, belief in this bed I just crawled out of, belief in the rising sun and this cup of coffee I'm sipping from. Belief that my life matters and that my experiences are real and the accumulating knowledge I possess does a reasonable job of reflecting reality.
All we know comes through out bodies and processes its way into our mind. The is not Body/Mind problem! The mind is the inside of the body dealing with the physical reality we’re embedded within.
Science is about the physical world, it’s a method, a set of rules, that the human mind invented, to better understand the natural world around us. It is indeed based on philosophical arguments and faith. It’s people doing the best they can, and belief in certain fundamentals is a part of that.
Faith is a need driven from within our bodies navigating an uncertain world. Religion is also an invention of humankind, much older, much more primal and personal, it’s all about ourselves and our needs needs and desires.
God is real, but god is a belief we created within ourselves, @Dad1 wants to believe he’s got something special from outside of Earth, that’s his belief.
The problem is that there are two separate definitions of “belief”
Belief: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed an individual's religious or political beliefs especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group the beliefs of the Catholic ChurchBelief without proof, also called faith. "I believe in God but I have no evidence".
Belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence belief in the validity of scientific statementsBelief based on evidence, also called axiom.
Axiom; As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning."I believe the earth orbits the sun".
What I actually said was that Adam was not born in a womb and his life never began in a womb. That means that you cannot compare him to a baby who does start out in the womb. Trying to divert the issue into one of ‘Jews’ is crass and low. I neither know, nor much care what some religions may say on the issue of life or Adam
You obviously take the Bible literally word for word and don’t know what midrash is. I gave you the Hebrew word for “first birth” and for the Jews, life begins at first breath. It doesn’t matter that Adam wasn’t in a womb. What matters is that life begins at first breath, not conception.
Too bad all origin sciences is belief based and anything but known then eh?
I don’t believe that other primates are our cousins and we descended from a common ancestor, I know we did. The idea of a god is based on belief, not scientific knowledge.
Hmmm, Dad’s angry nasty angels are coming to the fore.
He’s upset because we are showing he’s wrong about his beliefs and showing evidence that his religious beliefs are not scientific or factual.
Link to where you did all that? Hilarious denial.
Post your best piece of evidence for your claim then.
Unless you or (if your claim were correct) they post bible evidence for denying babies are alive, then you have no argument at all.
I neither know, nor much care -dad1@dad1
You can save much time by just copy and pasting this statement of yours every time you have the urge to contribute
@dad1 What Does the Bible Say About Abortion? - Freedom From Religion Foundation
This covers abortion, when life begins, God killing babies, and more, chapter and verse, so you can look it up in your poorly translation KJV.
When Does Life Begin?According to the bible, life begins at birth–when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as “breath” in several significant passages, including the story of Adam’s creation in Genesis 2:7, when God “breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.
Desperate for a biblical basis for their beliefs, some antiabortionists cite obscure passages, usually metaphors or poetic phrasing, such as: “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Psalm 51:5 This is sexist, but does nothing other than to invoke original sin. It says nothing about abortion.
Moses, Jesus and Paul ignored every chance to condemn abortion. If abortion is so important, why didn’t the bible say so?
But you probably don’t care and if you don’t care, then I could care less if you read it or not. However, if you don’t read it, then that’s on you and I won’t be giving you any more links.
False. Adam’s life began when God breathed life into him. Babies have life in the womb as the bible shows. One example is John the Baptist. The angel said
“He will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb, and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.” (Luke 1:5-25) John the Baptist prophesied from womb | DOLR.org