There is only 2 options, Life formed because of God, or by random chance from non-living matter

[Larniavc]

Answer the question. If you admit you don't know how something occurred how can you logically rule out possibilities you don't, and can't, even know exist.

To be fair the paleo/biological/geological evidence rules out a Biblical historical time line.

For example there is no evidence of a global flood or creation ex-nihilo.

 

[Firstlightdawn]

Then don't use AI.

It is very fast and saves as lot of time. But sometimes it gets jammed and does not work.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is very fast and saves as lot of time. But sometimes it gets jammed and does not work.

It's not worth the convenience I've found.

But what you described before could essentially be called the human mental state, which is something I guess COULD be considered a soul. But there's still the problem of people (not you) thinking the soul as something material, something tangible, enough for its presence to make a scientific difference.

There's the urban legend that a dead body immediately gets 21 grams lighter, and that's evidence of the soul leaving the body, which in all fairness is just a massive load of bunk.

 

[Larniavc]

It is very fast and saves as lot of time. But sometimes it gets jammed and does not work.

The problem is it’s like asking someone who believes anything they are told a complicated question.

 

[Firstlightdawn]

ere's the urban legend that a dead body immediately gets 21 grams lighter,

I have been dead at least 3 times and do not remember anything. I have had a lot of dreams and visions. But not when I was dead. But I do feel the angels bring brief messages to me from people that are in heaven.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have been dead at least 3 times and do not remember anything. I have had a lot of dreams and visions. But not when I was dead. But I do feel the angels bring brief messages to me from people that are in heaven.

... wonderful how that has nothing to do with what I said and you seemingly made the point to ignore what I said, so I'll repost my comment again so you do understand what I said:

But what you described before could essentially be called the human mental state, which is something I guess COULD be considered a soul. But there's still the problem of people (not you) thinking the soul as something material, something tangible, enough for its presence to make a scientific difference.


There's the urban legend that a dead body immediately gets 21 grams lighter, and that's evidence of the soul leaving the body, which in all fairness is just a massive load of bunk.

 

[Firstlightdawn]

wonderful how that has nothing to do with what I said

ok, so you feel I have nothing to contribute to this conversation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

ok, so you feel I have nothing to contribute to this conversation.

You're doing it again. Don't ignore the whole comment and respond with an out of context remark from a single snippet you've picked out from the post.

Make the actual effort to respond to whole of the post or the general gist of the post, or don't respond at all. What you're doing is pretty rude.

And they do it again in 5... 4... 3... 2...

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is very fast and saves as lot of time. But sometimes it gets jammed and does not work.

All it ever does for me is slow down my google searches.

 

[Firstlightdawn]

All it ever does for me is slow down my google searches.

I use microsoft. It becomes very personalized and remembers a lot of information for me. Even I bought stock in Microsoft and it almost doubled in value. I am glad google and alexa are trying to keep up.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I use microsoft. It becomes very personalized and remembers a lot of information for me. Even I bought stock in Microsoft and it almost doubled in value.

The last thing I want is a search engine that remembers me.

I am glad google and alexa are trying to keep up.

Google search is failing. It gets worse and worse with time.

 

[Jipsah]

The last thing I want is a search engine that remembers me.

Google search is failing. It gets worse and worse with time.

BTW, apropos of absolutely nothing, my grandkids are now a in school that's on the Columbia Pike right at the northern base of Winstead Hill. Just a few blocks toward town is the new (well, new by Franklin standards, anyway) county library at Columbia and Strahl streets. Strahl runs west into Granbury. Gist St. runs into Columbia a couple of blocks north of there, and Adams runs roughly parallel to Columbia to the east. The Carter house is on the other side of Strahl from the library. The Lotz house stands at the corner of Columbia and Fowlkes St. which was presumably named after Edward and Gabriel Fowlkes, both of whom were present for the festivities in Franklin although they apparently never had an opportunity to shoot at each other. The young 'uns (there's one of 'em in my profile picture) play at the park just across the creek from the location where Ft. Grainger was. All that stuff will be ancient history to them. Just as well, i 'spect.

back to the original thread, and apologies to anyone I offended with this digression.

 

[Hans Blaster]

BTW, apropos of absolutely nothing, my grandkids are now a in school that's on the Columbia Pike right at the northern base of Winstead Hill. Just a few blocks toward town is the new (well, new by Franklin standards, anyway) county library at Columbia and Strahl streets. Strahl runs west into Granbury. Gist St. runs into Columbia a couple of blocks north of there, and Adams runs roughly parallel to Columbia to the east. The Carter house is on the other side of Strahl from the library. The Lotz house stands at the corner of Columbia and Fowlkes St. which was presumably named after Edward and Gabriel Fowlkes, both of whom were present for the festivities in Franklin although they apparently never had an opportunity to shoot at each other. The young 'uns (there's one of 'em in my profile picture) play at the park just across the creek from the location where Ft. Grainger was. All that stuff will be ancient history to them. Just as well, i 'spect.

What was that?

back to the original thread, and apologies to anyone I offended with this digression.

It was kind of dead.

 

[Jipsah]

What was that?

Battle of Franklin. Where Hood charged the Army of Tennessee into the meat grinder.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think that's a false dichotomy.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit priest and paleontologist (he was involved in discovering Peking Man), but he drew upon the notion of the French Philosopher Henri Bergson's Élan vital, (life force), to argue that matter has a certainty directivity within itself, moving towards a teleological end of complexification and the involution of consciousness, which Teilhard saw as harmonious with his own Christian faith.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think that's a false dichotomy.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a Jesuit priest and paleontologist (he was involved in discovering Peking Man), but he drew upon the notion of the French Philosopher Henri Bergson's Élan vital, (life force), to argue that matter has a certainty directivity within itself, moving towards a teleological end of complexification and the involution of consciousness, which Teilhard saw as harmonious with his own Christian faith.

It's not really a false dichotomy when there are people who say there can only be one or the other. Their personal beliefs do not allow there to be anything but.

 

[Mountainmike]

Oh dear. Such confidence in your lack of knowledge is sad to view. Where to begin? I suggest you educate yourself on what evolution actually is, not the cartoon version you currently hold so dear. Unfortunately, you will likely just double down on your ignorance on the subject, perhaps because it feels better.

Where have YOU been?

You do know that darwinian evolution as proposed is essentially dead. Not that it was ever any good.

That most inheritance is not even from genes.
That life is certainly not progressive small change and there are not enough geberations to account for evolution ( try how did a whale get from land if you want to focus on the absurdity of it)
That life from chemistry is no further in the last 50years than it was as pure guess when miller Urey failed to account for even basic proteins .
That there is nothing even conjectured simpler than the modern massively complicated cell.
The information scale problem makes any genome so highly unlikely it didn’t happen from chance.

That life has consciousness and not just schrodinger but even feynmann believed consciusness was primary, matter secondary . Evolution has no account for consciusness or it’s survival outside the body,

In short you are stuck in a materialist reductionist world that has no underpinning except your belief in it!
like flat earth it is a bygone age.
so tell us , since there is no single theory of evolutin and certainly not one that accounts for life development as we know it, that the start is completely unknown, let’s hear your personal theory of evolution? I keep asking evolutionists for a definition, none of them seem to have studied it enough to know there isn’t a single one.

it is you I think needs education on all that took place in the last 50 years.

My essential point is you have NO basis to be rude to others, as was your last response,
My purpose for responding is that.

i prefer science to evolutionist Scientism that is increasingly unsupportable.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And here's MountainMike to save the day with another comment loaded with half baked comments, self-aggrandizing commentary and insults, as per his MO.

 

[Mountainmike]

And here's MountainMike to save the day with another comment loaded with half baked comments, self-aggrandizing commentary and insults, as per his MO.

They are called inconvenient facts for materialist reductionists.
why is you think an insult “ half baked “ is appropriate ?
That was the reason I entered the thread . To challenge an insult made by another. It’s what Scientism believers do.

If your arguments and study are good enough challenge one of the points I made.

 

[The Barbarian]

You do know that darwinian evolution as proposed is essentially dead. Not that it was ever any good.

Well, that's a testable assumption. Which of the four points of Darwinian theory have been refuted? Name the point and how it's been refuted. If you do that, you'll be the first person answer my question. What do you have?

That most inheritance is not even from genes.

Show us that. Epigenetics is a rather small contributor to inheritance. Even most YECs admit that much.

That life is certainly not progressive small change and there are not enough geberations to account for evolution ( try how did a whale get from land if you want to focus on the absurdity of it)

Even honest YECs admit that there is abundant evidence for the evolution of whales. Would you like me to show you?

That life from chemistry is no further in the last 50years

Here you've wrongly assumed that evolution is about the way life began. Even Darwin assumed that God created the first living things.
"People are down on things they aren't up on."
Everett Dirkson

so tell us , since there is no single theory of evolutin and certainly not one that accounts for life development as we know it, that the start is completely unknown, let’s hear your personal theory of evolution?

Darwin's is a good start. Tell us which of his points in the theory have been refuted. Most YECs cut and run at this point. But maybe you're different. What do you have?

it is you I think needs education on all that took place in the last 50 years.

Funny thing. A little over 50 years ago, when I started in biology, we were missing a lot of transitional fossils. Now, a very large number of them have been found. And the mechanisms of heredity have been worked out. And an entirely new science, evolutionary development, has shown how developmental genes account for phylogenetic change. But you know nothing about any of this, do you. Someone needs education on all that took place in the last 50 years.

Let's see if you can come up with an answer for us. Good luck.