Why science unable to control Death ?

[lostwanderingsoul]

Depends on what you consider verifiable evidence. I think the fact that there are billions of stars in the sky and thousands of different forms of living things on earth to be pretty good evidence. But anyone who is not willing to accept the possibility of God's existence will not see this as evidence.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Depends on what you consider verifiable evidence. I think the fact that there are billions of stars in the sky and thousands of different forms of living things on earth to be pretty good evidence. But anyone who is not willing to accept the possibility of God's existence will not see this as evidence.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Depends on what you consider verifiable evidence. I think the fact that there are billions of stars in the sky and thousands of different forms of living things on earth to be pretty good evidence. But anyone who is not willing to accept the possibility of God's existence will not see this as evidence.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Depends on what you consider verifiable evidence. I think the fact that there are billions of stars in the sky and thousands of different forms of living things on earth to be pretty good evidence. But anyone who is not willing to accept the possibility of God's existence will not see this as evidence.

 

[McBell]

Depends on what you consider verifiable evidence. I think the fact that there are billions of stars in the sky and thousands of different forms of living things on earth to be pretty good evidence. But anyone who is not willing to accept the possibility of God's existence will not see this as evidence.

If the fact that the universe exists is all you need as "verifiable evidence" than your standards for evidence is so low that there can be no meaningful discussion with you on the topic unless with choir members.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

And the scientific proof that life came from nonliving substances has never been observed or duplicated in nature or in a laboratory. It is just a guess because science can't think of any other way for life to have begun.

 

[leibowde84]

And the scientific proof that life came from nonliving substances has never been observed or duplicated in nature or in a laboratory. It is just a guess because science can't think of any other way for life to have begun.

What scientific theory claims that life came from non life. Most, if not all scientists I've read stick with the position that we just don't know how it happened yet. No assumption.

 

[Milton Platt]

After decades of prosperity and success,
But still science is unable to escape "Death" why ?

Same reason science hasn't solved many things yet. Why is this one particularly important?

 

[Milton Platt]

And the scientific proof that life came from nonliving substances has never been observed or duplicated in nature or in a laboratory. It is just a guess because science can't think of any other way for life to have begun.

Science consists of multiple disciplines, it is not a thinking being. It is nonsensical to say "science can't think" because science is not a sentient being.
Science does not "prove" things. It looks at available evidence and constructs a hypothesis. If future observation and experimentation do not falsify the hypothesis, it becomes a theory. Theories become stronger with more evidence, and can be modified or even abandoned if the evidence indicates it should be. So Science simply builds theories based on best available evidence to explain what is observed.

Abiogenisis is also a theory. Even though science has not duplicated the entire process, we do have some ideas about how it could occur. What specific steps do you want to see in a lab or nature? How exactly do you think the theory of abiogenesis describes the process? Can you demonstrate that you understand what evidence supports it?

Are you saying that if the process can't be duplicated in a lab, that makes it false? That would make the crestion of life by a god also false.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I haven't ruled out reincarnation.
but we increase in numbers hour by hour
so...I suspect more likely.....new souls......
day by day

Both may be in play...as appropriate...

 

[Thief]

If the fact that the universe exists is all you need as "verifiable evidence" than your standards for evidence is so low that there can be no meaningful discussion with you on the topic unless with choir members.

denial before the choir?
that won't work

 

[Ben Dhyan]

ben d I have no idea where this whole concept of yours comes from, but it isn't what the Bible teaches.

The "clay body" was Adam's and the elements of the earth make up all matter. We as human offspring of Adam, are created by parents who come together to each donate a living cell which when united, forms a new human being. The process is miraculous, but there is no divine spirit that incarnates in that body such as occurred with Adam. He was a direct creation of God, but he had the ability to impart life as a life-giver to others. It is an undirected process.

The spirit that animates any living creature is its breath. A newborn takes its first breath as a natural process...all living souls breath the same air and experience the same "life" at birth. The thing that separates human souls from animal souls is that we alone are not programmed to die. The breath we receive at birth was supposed to keep on going...forever. When humankind fell into sin and disobedience, death came to us and now we lose our spirit when we breathe our last breath. Our hope of living again is by resurrection. There is no invisible, conscious part of us that goes anywhere when we die. Resurrection is a return to life, either in a spirit body to reign with Christ in heaven, or in a physical body, resurrected to live as an earthly subject of those heavenly rulers.

Likewise I have no idea where the belief sprung from that post Adamic humanity are soulless...for the very definition of what constitutes a human soul comes from Genesis 2:7 .The so called breath that was breathed into Adam was neshamah ....from nasham....whiich can be translated as blast, breath, breathes, life , persons alive, spirit, who breathed. This breath/spirit/life can not be passed on from one clay body to the next....and if it can, then it is still a form of reincarnation....and so if it does not come direct to the new clay body babies as in a breath from God, then all humanity are soulless...which we know they are not... So take your pick...modern humanity are a result of pure spiritual incarnation, reincarnated spirit, or soulless..

 

[roger1440]

If science could control death then someone would buy the patent. Death is big business. You wouldn't want someone to spoil that.

 

[Thief]

Likewise I have no idea where the belief sprung from that post Adamic humanity are soulless...for the very definition of what constitutes a human soul comes from Genesis 2:7 .The so called breath that was breathed into Adam was neshamah ....from nasham....whiich can be translated as blast, breath, breathes, life , persons alive, spirit, who breathed. This breath/spirit/life can not be passed on from one clay body to the next....and so if it does not come direct to the new clay body babies as in a breath from God, then all humanity are soulless...which we know they are not...

oh now maybe.....
some people have no souls....

some of the posters here seem to believe they don't.....
and their postings seem to display as much

 

[Ben Dhyan]

oh now maybe.....
some people have no souls....

some of the posters here seem to believe they don't.....
and their postings seem to display as much

Haha....I will give them the benefit of the doubt...and call it a severe lack of self esteem. But in time all will seek to look deeper into themselves to find the answers as to what and who they are rather than blindly believing the answers spoon fed to them by academia or religious institutions...

 

[outhouse]

some people have no souls....

Factually no one has EVER been shown to possess a single one

 

[Sunstone]

And the scientific proof that life came from nonliving substances has never been observed or duplicated in nature or in a laboratory. It is just a guess because science can't think of any other way for life to have begun.

Read more science.

 

[McBell]

denial before the choir?
that won't work

Ah, more dogma from the peanut gallery.
what is it you claim I deny?
Perhaps this time you will answer the question?

 

[Milton Platt]

Why can't science control death? Because science can"t control anything - science only explains the actions of things that happen in nature. And sometimes those explanations are not correct because science refuses to consider the existence of God.

Actually the theories are always open to modification with new evidence, that is why they change. If any evidence ever points to a god being involved, then the affected theories would be modified. Why do you anthropomorphize science? It isn't a single monolithic thing. It is a number of seperate disciplines. Science simply produces theories which best explain a phenomenon without doing damage to any of the available evidence. If creationists could produce a working hypothesis, let alone a solid theory, they would have.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Science refuses to consider the possibility of a creator even though many people believe in this. Can you name one scientific hypothesis or theory that even mentions the possibility of a creator? They claim the universe startedfrom a big bang but they can't explain exactly how or why that happened. They claim life evolved but they can't give exact details on how or why. They believe the big bang occured because they see evidence of it. Creationists see evidence that the universe was created but science does not see it.