• 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!

Shroud of Turin is from first AD.

joelr

Well-Known Member
If science is the study of matter, the physical world then I’m good with that part.
When science starts speculating like the theory of evolution, how life began, like the Big Bang and out of that life formed in a puddle, from that and billions of years life that we see on earth happened then that’s more than magical, it’s a pipe dream.
Just think when you see the fireworks display that out of the ashes some new life form could appear.



Wow that is the most incorrect description of evolution I have ever heard.Evolution and abiogenesis are completely different. The Big Bang is completely different and has a completely different line of evidence?

The fireworks analogy betrays an absolute lack of even a shred of knowledge of evolution or abiogenesis? Your born again group are telling you literal lies.

An honest person would learn the theory (all 3) and then explain what you find implausable with parts of the theory. Strawmanning them into ridiculous versions and debunking that is literally sayinng NOTHING.

It's like someone arguing against Christianity saying "Oh that God guy who sits on a mountain and makes Lightning and his son Jesus who flies around with a cape and beats up criminals and keeps aliens out and is a hippy?" That's not real.....
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I did and do pray and I was healed by God,
I still am healed, how about you ? You healed yet?


Yes and had you prayed to that stone you would also be healed. So God healed you? Oh, and your immune system and natural healing powers? But no, it's was definitely the fictional one who did it.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
If you don't find truth through the scriptures that is up to you.
In my life i found it to help me.

Sorry but that is a no true Scotsman fallacy. You'd need to demonstrate some objective evidence for the claim, not simply dismiss those who don't see some hidden esoteric message as wrong without any evidence beyond your subjective belief.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
So, the Big Bang then you have this organism in a puddle of water that supposedly came from ash. From this organism came all the life we see. Tell you what, I will give you this organism in a puddle and you can strike it with electricity, feed it and let’s see what happens to it. See with you the creator/scientist involved manipulating things you still wouldn’t be able to create an ant out of it let alone a human being. Yet you believe the theory and this all happened in its own no less.


And another strawman. Worse each timer.

The eukaryotes developed at least 2.7 billion years ago, following some 1 to 1.5 billion years of prokaryotic evolution. Studies of their DNA sequences indicate that the archaebacteria and eubacteria are as different from each other as either is from present-day eukaryotes.

And the earth had Trillions of small puddles, for billions of years. Oops, forget about that? wow your nonsense one-sided, ignore 99.9% of facts arguments are so clever.
 
And another strawman. Worse each timer.

The eukaryotes developed at least 2.7 billion years ago, following some 1 to 1.5 billion years of prokaryotic evolution. Studies of their DNA sequences indicate that the archaebacteria and eubacteria are as different from each other as either is from present-day eukaryotes.

And the earth had Trillions of small puddles, for billions of years. Oops, forget about that? wow your nonsense one-sided, ignore 99.9% of facts arguments are so clever.
Really? Who observed this? It’s fantasy Re-create this scenario of your process. Mosquitos is what you’ll get
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
They are all connected in what your proposing which is a creation apart from a Creator which is an impossible scenario. You want to talk just one part but fail at the beginning of life.


You demonstrated you know nothing about the big bang, evolution or abiogenesis. You know nothing of the current research of self replicating compounds. So your objections are angry musings taken from other equally uneducated born again group members.
It's impossible if you don't know what it is.

So is flying to the moon, nuclear reactors and flight in planes. Totally impossible. Unless God did it.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Sorry but that is a no true Scotsman fallacy. You'd need to demonstrate some objective evidence for the claim, not simply dismiss those who don't see some hidden esoteric message as wrong without any evidence beyond your subjective belief.
Its my personal life, I have no obligation to prove anything. I was asked about my personal spiritual lifestyle. And I answered what it had done to me.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Defining a species


A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.





That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.

Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups — but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?
If two lineages of oak look quite different, but occasionally form hybrids with each other, should we count them as different species? There are lots of other places where the boundary of a species is blurred. It’s not so surprising that these blurry places exist — after all, the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience!
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Really? Who observed this? It’s fantasy Re-create this scenario of your process. Mosquitos is what you’ll get


Uh, or preserved fossils and current living versions?

Today both eukaryotes and prokaryotes still exist. Eukaryotes can be found variously as single-celled organisms called protists, and as organized systems in multicellular organisms. The cells of all plants, animals and fungi are eukaryotes.


The origin of the eukaryotic cell is a milestone in the evolution of life, since eukaryotes include all complex cells and almost all multicellular organisms. A number of approaches have been used to find the first eukaryote and their closest relatives. The last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) is the hypothetical last common ancestor of all living eukaryotes, and was most likely a biological population.[97]
Fossils[edit]
The timing of this series of events is hard to determine; Knoll (2006) suggests they developed approximately 1.6–2.1 billion years ago. Some acritarchs are known from at least 1.65 billion years ago, and the possible alga Grypania has been found as far back as 2.1 billion years ago.[100] The Geosiphon-like fossil fungus Diskagma has been found in paleosols 2.2 billion years old.[101]

Organized living structures have been found in the black shales of the Palaeoproterozoic Francevillian B Formation in Gabon, dated at 2.1 billion years old. Eukaryotic life could have evolved at that time.[102] Fossils that are clearly related to modern groups start appearing an estimated 1.2 billion years ago, in the form of a red algae, though recent work suggests the existence of fossilized filamentous algae in the Vindhya basin dating back perhaps to 1.6 to 1.7 billion years ago.[103]

The presence of eukaryotic-specific biomarkers (steranes) in Australian shales previously indicated that eukaryotes were present in these rocks dated at 2.7 billion years old,[98][104] which was even 300 million years older than the first geological records of the appreciable amount of molecular oxygen during the Great Oxidation Event. However, these Archaean biomarkers were eventually rebutted as later contaminants.[105] Currently, putatively the oldest biomarker records are only ~800 million years old.[106] In contrast, a molecular clock analysis suggests the emergence of sterol biosynthesis as early as 2.3 billion years ago,[107] and thus there is a huge gap between molecular data and geological data, which hinders a reasonable inference of the eukaryotic evolution through biomarker records before 800 million years ago. The nature of steranes as eukaryotic biomarkers is further complicated by the production of sterols by some bacteria.[108][109]

Whenever their origins, eukaryotes may not have become ecologically dominant until much later; a massive uptick in the zinc composition of marine sediments 800 million years ago has been attributed to the rise of substantial populations of eukaryotes, which preferentially consume and incorporate zinc relative to prokaryotes, approximately a billion years after their origin (at the latest).[110]

In April 2019, biologists reported that the very large medusavirus, or a relative, may have been responsible, at least in part, for the evolutionary emergence of complex eukaryotic cells from simpler prokaryotic cells.[111]
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Really? Who observed this? It’s fantasy Re-create this scenario of your process.

You do see the irony of your false claim here don't you? What am I saying, I never met a theist yet who didn't have some form of irony impairment. Oh and he did explain it, as does science, and objective evidence need not involve a direct observation of an event, ever heard of geology, it's an entire field of science predicated on that fact.

The more you talk, the more shockingly ignorant the posts seem of even the most basic scientific understanding.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
If you don't find truth through the scriptures that is up to you.
In my life i found it to help me.


Things that are true and things that help you are not exclusive? There are tenants of Scientology that millions of people claim has changed their lives in a positive way. I do not believe the space wars and alien species story taught at the cumulation of Scientology. Some psychology is what helped.
Things that are true will be able to show evidence. Your claims of a physical body/soul are not evidenced except that they are Greek myths taken on by Hebrew thinkers during the 2nd Temple Period. That does not suggest they are true.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
It's impossible if you don't know what it is.

So is flying to the moon, nuclear reactors and flight in planes. Totally impossible. Unless God did it.

The irony of him falsely asserting that scientific theories were based on confirmation bias, was pretty hilarious irony though, you have to admit.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The irony of him falsely asserting that scientific theories were based on confirmation bias, was pretty hilarious irony though, you have to admit.
It is funny. It's gone downhill fast.
Thinking that watching a puddle for an hour is the same condition that produced a Eukaryotes is worse than flat earth.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Things that are true and things that help you are not exclusive? There are tenants of Scientology that millions of people claim has changed their lives in a positive way. I do not believe the space wars and alien species story taught at the cumulation of Scientology. Some psychology is what helped.
Things that are true will be able to show evidence. Your claims of a physical body/soul are not evidenced except that they are Greek myths taken on by Hebrew thinkers during the 2nd Temple Period. That does not suggest they are true.
I don't answer for others experience of spiritual lifestyle. Only to what it have done for me.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
To give answer to someone who only going to refute it has no value to me it helped me, thats what count to me.

Well how you treat it is your choice of course, but if you can support your claims with sufficient objective evidence, and or sound rational argument there will be no grounds for refutation.

I also find that an odd thing to say in a public debate forum, since debate must necessarily involve opposing views and arguments?
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Well how you treat it is your choice of course, but if you can support your claims with sufficient objective evidence, and or sound rational argument there will be no grounds for refutation.

I also find that an odd thing to say in a public debate forum, since debate must necessarily involve opposing views and arguments?
As I sad. I answered a question. No need to explain something that would only be useful for my personal life and spirituality
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
I don't answer for others experience of spiritual lifestyle. Only to what it have done for me.


I don't care what it has "done" for you? You could have read Lord of the Rings and had a life changing experience? That doesn't make Frodo real. Or Elven magic.
My question was regarding your claim of a soul and similar. What is your evidence for forming such a belief? Right now everything you have suggested can be done with psychology. Changes in belief, emotional, mental states can all cause profound experiences.
I am interested in what is true, not comparing spiritual biceps. It is important to evaluate evidence and the reason I post this on a DEBATE forum.
 
Top