What do you say the first living creature was?What was the first living creature and what features did it have?
On what basis do you say it?
If you don't know, how can you say any other answer is wrong?
Last edited:
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!
What do you say the first living creature was?What was the first living creature and what features did it have?
Probably from supernovae. The source of your information is A.L. Strom et al., 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 958 (1), L11, ShieldSquare Captcha .Why is there an abundance of heavy elements in the early universe, especially nickel?
All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Oh my, such projection. You are conflating scientists with people that work at creationist sites. One has to swear that one will not follow the scientific method at places like AiG.Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.
This is your claim, where is your evidence and coherent explanation?All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.
False. We know the universe is billions of years old because space telescopes allow us to observe the past and age of the universe. And evolution is known because it is a conclusion based on many types of evidence, like the fossil record, genetics, geology, and observed species evolving.This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption)
This isn't accurate or coherent. If this is what you think science is I suggest you go back to the 7th grade and learn. The odd thing is that this is how religious belief works.and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
There is none. Your flwed interpretation of the Bible isn't evidence.Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.
You have not presented a single irrefutable proof, at all, ever here on RF.I have given a number of irrefutable proofs.
Simply untrue. That is how creationists think and they admit it in their 'statements of faith'. They 'know' that their interpretation of the bible must be right, so they are the ones who are staring with their conclusions and claiming everything must fit in with that.This is it in a nutshell.
We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).
Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.
Well there are a lot of interpretations of the Bible out there and that is reflected in statements of faith.Simply untrue. That is how creationists think and they admit it in their 'statements of faith'. They 'know' that their interpretation of the bible must be right, so they are the ones who are staring with their conclusions and claiming everything must fit in with that.
Real science doesn't work like that and saying that it does is bearing false witness. You may be just repeating it in good faith because you trust those who told you, but whoever originated it was either lying or speaking from complete ignorance.
Matthew 7:5
If the Bible was as 'clear' as you claim it is, why are there so many different interpretations of it?Well there are a lot of interpretations of the Bible out there and that is reflected in statements of faith.
However the Bible is quite clear and so there is just one faith.
Is it? They insist on a literal interpretation of the creation myth. That only represents rather small cult. Most mainstream Christian denominations accept evolution and the science about the age of Earth and the universe.Well there are a lot of interpretations of the Bible out there and that is reflected in statements of faith.
So why do we have endless different denominations, cults, and sects that think so differently....?However the Bible is quite clear and so there is just one faith.
And you still seem to have missed the point. You criticised science for doing what creationist pseudoscience does quite openly without even much attempt to hide it. You said:Well there are a lot of interpretations of the Bible out there and that is reflected in statements of faith.
However the Bible is quite clear and so there is just one faith.
In other words the Bible was wrong. Again.Well there are a lot of interpretations of the Bible out there and that is reflected in statements of faith.
However the Bible is quite clear and so there is just one faith.
No.In other words the Bible was wrong. Again.
Well...In other words the Bible was wrong. Again.
I have told you that an unbeliever cannot understand the Bible.Well...
Seems to me that you can not really blame the Bible for being wrong when the person making claims about the Bible is wrong much more often then they are right....
Yes you have.I have told you that an unbeliever cannot understand the Bible.
It is a clear as crystal.
You don't understand it either. If you did you could justify your claims.I have told you that an unbeliever cannot understand the Bible.
It is a clear as crystal.
Your viws reveal two things: 1. that you don't undrstand science. 2. that you don't understand the history of both parts of the Bible, nor who wrote the parts, nor how it was compiled, nor how it was edited in copying, and translated over he last few thousand years to fit various agendas.Well there are a lot of interpretations of the Bible out there and that is reflected in statements of faith.
Judaism? Or the splinter sect that became Catholicism? Or the many tens of thousands of sects that came after Martin Luther protested some 1400 years later?However the Bible is quite clear and so there is just one faith.
And what maks you certain it isn't you given how much you deny facts and observations that are explained by science?No.
Just Satan deceiving people so they will not see the truth.
Yet there are millions of Christian believers who accept evolution and science as a whole. Are you saying these believers don't understand the Bible? If so, how is your claim here correct and not a contradiction?I have told you that an unbeliever cannot understand the Bible.
Not according to all the Christian believers who disagree with your interpretation. Explain.It is a clear as crystal.
Of course they areAnd what maks you certain it isn't you given how much you deny facts and observations that are explained by science?
Yet there are millions of Christian believers who accept evolution and science as a whole. Are you saying these believers don't understand the Bible? If so, how is your claim here correct and not a contradiction?
Not according to all the Christian believers who disagree with your interpretation. Explain.
And where is this clearly stated?Of course they are
And when you say Christians Christ said that the majority that believed on Him were not saved and will be in hell.