Truth: either God exists or He don't.

[Subduction Zone]

In your position you have to prove spontaneous generation, which was already proven to be impossible by science. You don’t know but I do.
There is a lot of evidence for God and He has made himself known to me and many others. My life is proof and evidence, just not the evidence and proof you need. For other people it’s plenty.

So wrong, as usual. You do not know what spontaneous generation is. Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis was not shown to be impossible.

I have to ask you something, you have to know that you have very little education in the sciences. Why do you assume, at least it seems that you assume, that scientists have the same lack of education in the sciences? Those studying abiogenesis clearly understand spontaneous generation. Don't you think they would realize if they were making such an error.

And as pointed out since you have no reliable evidence, and since you cannot support your claim about "knowing" you do not know. You merely have a belief. Your so called tests tell us that you are running off of confirmation bias and not evidence. Until you find a proper way to test your belief you only have mere faith. Not a pathway to the truth. Any person that really believed and wanted to know would not be afraid to test their belief. But someone that had doubts and only wanted an excuse to believe would act as you do.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So wrong, as usual. You do not know what spontaneous generation is. Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Abiogenesis was not shown to be impossible.

I have to ask you something, you have to know that you have very little education in the sciences. Why do you assume, at least it seems that you assume, that scientists have the same lack of education in the sciences? Those studying abiogenesis clearly understand spontaneous generation. Don't you think they would realize if they were making such an error.

And as pointed out since you have no reliable evidence, and since you cannot support your claim about "knowing" you do not know. You merely have a belief. Your so called tests tell us that you are running off of confirmation bias and not evidence. Until you find a proper way to test your belief you only have mere faith. Not a pathway to the truth. Any person that really believed and wanted to know would not be afraid to test their belief. But someone that had doubts and only wanted an excuse to believe would act as you do.

Brother, sorry you’re in denial about life, only life can beget life. You can make up fancy names all you want to but it’s all the same. You cannot get life from nothing.
Fact is we are here, God has life in Himself and He created all of this just like the Scripture says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Brother, sorry you’re in denial about life, only life can beget life. You can make up fancy names all you want to but it’s all the same. You cannot get life from nothing.
Fact is we are here, God has life in Himself and He created all of this just like the Scripture says.

LOL! Life only begets life now. You really need to take some remedial science courses. Unless you try to learn abiogenesis will always be beyond your grasp.

Why do you keep yourself uneducated about almost all of the sciences? You know that you cannot win a debate when you know nothing of what you are talking about, don't you?

 

[ElishaElijah]

LOL! Life only begets life now. You really need to take some remedial science courses. Unless you try to learn abiogenesis will always be beyond your grasp.

Why do you keep yourself uneducated about almost all of the sciences? You know that you cannot win a debate when you know nothing of what you are talking about, don't you?

It’s not a debate it’s a fact, now you call people names etc. because it’s true. You cannot get something from nothing, if you start with nothing, you cannot get something. As much as you want to, you cannot. You already admitted you don’t know and that’s right, you don’t.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It’s not a debate it’s a fact, now you call people names etc. because it’s true. You cannot get something from nothing, if you start with nothing, you cannot get something. As much as you want to, you cannot. You already admitted you don’t know and that’s right, you don’t.

I know, they are facts, and the facts say that you are wrong.

And no, I know, I can support my claims. You only believe and have told us that you do not wish to know.

By the way, I do not mind discussing abiogenesis, but it requires some honesty on the part of the person that wants to discuss it. Moving the goalposts all the way to abiogenesis is in effect admitting that evolution is true since evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. If you admit that life is the product of evolution and that various stories in the Bible are myths then I will gladly go over abiogenesis with you. If not there is no point in trying to help you to understand abiogenesis.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I know, they are facts, and the facts say that you are wrong.

And no, I know, I can support my claims. You only believe and have told us that you do not wish to know.

By the way, I do not mind discussing abiogenesis, but it requires some honesty on the part of the person that wants to discuss it. Moving the goalposts all the way to abiogenesis is in effect admitting that evolution is true since evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. If you admit that life is the product of evolution and that various stories in the Bible are myths then I will gladly go over abiogenesis with you. If not there is no point in trying to help you to understand abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is a theory not a fact

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis is a theory not a fact

Oh my so wrong! If it was a theory then it would explain the facts. In the sciences there is nothing above a theory. Do not get confused by how people abuse the term in colloquial speech. Theories are if anything above scientific laws. Theories never become laws, but they can supplant scientific laws. Take Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation that was supplanted by Einstein's more accurate theory of gravity also known as General Relativity.

Theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.

But since it appears that you have admitted that the Adam and Eve story is a myth I will continue for now. Abiogenesis is not a theory. It is still in the hypothetical stage. That means that there are still some serious unanswered questions. Of course as you know, unanswered questions are never evidence for God. Unanswered questions are neutral in that way.

 

[Polymath257]

Brother, sorry you’re in denial about life, only life can beget life. You can make up fancy names all you want to but it’s all the same. You cannot get life from nothing.
Fact is we are here, God has life in Himself and He created all of this just like the Scripture says.

Life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. Nothing else. There is no 'elan vitale', no 'vital fore' that makes something alive. it is ALL chemistry.

Recall that 'spontaneous generation', which *was* disproven by Pasteur, said that macroscopic life spontaneously formed from ordinary materials *today*. So, mice were thought to spontaneously arise out of dirty rags. This idea has been thoroughly discredited. So, no formation of living things in one step out of mud (or clay).

But, what Pasteur did NOT show is that complex collections of chemicals in a reducing environment (unlike that of today) could not produce microscopic life.

But *that* is the context of abiogenesis. It looks at the *chemistry* of life and considers how the complex collections of chemical reactions we see in life could have started.

It is NOT a *fact* that God created us. It is an opinion. One that is shared by many people, true. But an opinion none the less.

 

[Polymath257]

Abiogenesis is a theory not a fact

No, it is a hypothesis, not a theory. It is still an area of active research, but is not established.

But, it is a *fact* that NONE of the chemical in your body is alive. It is a *fact* that the same elements that make up your body are also parts of non-living things and are the most common elements in the universe. It is a *fact* that the basic compounds of those elements are common throughout the universe and were on the early Earth. it is a *fact* that those basic elements react *spontaneously* to form more complicated molecules, like those that form the basic parts of life. it is a fact that those basic parts (amino acids, nucleic acids) spontaneously polymerize to form proteins and RNA, which are basic to the chemistry of ALL living things.

Much of this was a surprise to many scientists. At one time, it was thought that there was a special substance, the 'elan vitale' that distinguished what is alive from what is not. That has been shown to be wrong. At one time, it was thought that some chemicals are unique to non-living things and others unique to living things. That was shown to be wrong. At one time, it was thought that proteins could not form in an environment like that of the early Earth. That was shown to be wrong. At one point, it was thought that amino acids could not spontaneously polymerize into proteins. That was shown to be wrong. At one time, it was thought that RNA could not catalyze biologically important reactions. That was shown to be wrong. At one time, it was thought that RNA could not self-replicate. That was shown to be wrong.

At each stage, the supposed blocks to abiogenesis have been shown to be invalid.

Is there more to learn? Absolutely. But at every stage, betting against abiogenesis has been a losing bet.

 

[paarsurrey]

I told you before that Baha'u'llah was a Muslim, not a Baha'i. Baha'is are people who follow Baha'u'llah.

Allah did have direct Converse with Baha'u'llah, but that is not in the Iqan. The Iqan is just a small part of all the tablets that Baha'u'llah wrote.

You understand incorrectly because Baha'u'llah was a prophet/messenger of Allah and his Manifestation.

No, that is not true. Baha'u'llah was a Manifestation of God.

Magenta ^, please.

In which post one mentioned it, kindly give post # and the link, please. I might have missed it, please.

Regards

 

[Trailblazer]

Magenta ^, please.

In which post one mentioned it, kindly give post # and the link, please. I might have missed it, please.

Regards

I do not have the post #, but I said essentially the same thing in that post as I said in the post you are responding to.

 

[paarsurrey]

I do not have the post #, but I said essentially the same thing in that post as I said in the post you are responding to.

So one means that Bahaullah was born a Muslim and died as a Muslim and was a Muslim in between, please? Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

So one means that Bahaullah was born a Muslim and died as a Muslim and was a Muslim in between, please? Right friend, please?

Regards

Bahai arose out of the work of Bahaullah. Just as Jesus was born and died a Jew. He was never a "Christian".

 

[paarsurrey]

Bahai arose out of the work of Bahaullah. Just as Jesus was born and died a Jew. He was never a "Christian".

Only magenta ^, please.
I agree Jesus and Mary were both born Jews and died as Jews. Christianity, I understand, was born out of a fake vision of Paul, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only magenta ^, please.
I agree Jesus and Mary were both born Jews and died as Jews. Christianity, I understand, was born out of a fake vision of Paul, please. Right friend, please?

Regards

No, no, no. It does not matter if it is "fake" or not. I could just as well call Islam "fake". I do not think that Christianity could have risen from a fake vision of Paul alone. There were others that probably believed in magic Jesus too. Odds are that the Christians, Muslims, and Bahai are all wrong about the end of Jesus. He probably died on the cross and like other Roman victims of crucifixion he was left there.

 

[Trailblazer]

So one means that Bahaullah was born a Muslim and died as a Muslim and was a Muslim in between, please? Right friend, please?

Regards

Baha'u'llah was born a Muslim and followed their laws until He got His own revelation from God on 1852, after which time He wrote a new Book of Laws. He was no longer a Muslim after that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Odds are that the Christians, Muslims, and Bahai are all wrong about the end of Jesus. He probably died on the cross and like other Roman victims of crucifixion he was left there.

Baha'is believe that Jesus died on the cross and then His soul ascended to heaven. I do not know if He was left there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Baha'is believe that Jesus died on the cross and then His soul ascended to heaven. I do not know if He was left there.

He almost certainly was. When it came to crimes against Rome, and that was what Jesus was charged with, there was no mercy from the Romans. Leaving the bodies on the cross was a very gruesome reminder of the people that they had conquered not to cause trouble.

 

[Trailblazer]

He almost certainly was. When it came to crimes against Rome, and that was what Jesus was charged with, there was no mercy from the Romans. Leaving the bodies on the cross was a very gruesome reminder of the people that they had conquered not to cause trouble.

So you don't think that Jesus was carried to a tomb where He was placed from which He rose from the dead three days later?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you don't think that Jesus was carried to a tomb where He was placed from which He rose from the dead three days later?

Nope. He was probably still dead and still on the cross.