- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Like Buddism, Hinduism is a mystical faith. It doesnt make sense unless or until your enlightened.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Like Buddism, Hinduism is a mystical faith. It doesnt make sense unless or until your enlightened.I am pretty sure the world is real. As a construction worker I do believe in mind over matter.
Pfft, depends on what you mean by "make sense". As in, in terms of story and sentence structure, sure, the texts related to Hinduism make for a strange read, but one could say they make "sense". As for them representing reality in any accurate way... no, just, no. Not at all. There's a reason why educated Hindus generally don't suggest that these texts are to be taken literally.Like Buddism, Hinduism is a mystical faith. It doesnt make sense unless or until your enlightened.
They suggest a lot of things not be taken literally, mysticism is like that. Not that it's a bad thing, a lot of Christians are mystics, they just have another way of looking at things.Pfft, depends on what you mean by "make sense". As in, in terms of story and sentence structure, sure, the texts related to Hinduism make for a strange read, but one could say they make "sense". As for them representing reality in any accurate way... no, just, no. Not at all. There's a reason why educated Hindus generally don't suggest that these texts are to be taken literally.
That's another impossibility. Miller-Urey proved that.
Even the simplest of life forms has complex DNA which could not self assemble.
All you have to do is read this forum and you'll find 25 people who had personal experiences with angels, demons or both. Such experiences are only uncommon with the unsaved. In addition, there are thousands of images captured on film and electronic media that can't be explained by faulty equipment or tampering. Even if 99.9999% were fake, the presence of one destroys your argument.
If God is real then angels are real.
If angels are real then demons are real.
If demons are real then the devil and his influence is real.
If these entities are real, why would they not be seen?
How would you know what a billion year old planet looked like? I'm quite sure you're not that old.
The Revelation is a pretty scary doomsday prediction, and all the precursers have been fulfilled.
The earliest life on Earth would not be the same as the current 'simplest' life on Earth. Remember, life on Earth is the product of 4+ billion years of evolution...
...That's a lot of unsupported assertions right there.
Your making an unsupported statement followed by a statement about what you call an unsupported statement. A bit ironic I would think.
Did too.No, no it didn't.
Unsupportable assertion. "Must have been, so it was" doesn't work here.The earliest life on Earth would not be the same as the current 'simplest' life on Earth.
That's YOUR lie, not mine.Remember, life on Earth is the product of 4+ billion years of evolution.
So which should I believe, my own senses or the unsupported claims of an unbeliever?Like I said, I believe that people have real experiences that they ascribe to demons or angels or other supernatural causes. That doesn't mean they are supernatural in nature.
Try seeing them when you're wide awake. Try seeing pool balls rolling around on a table struck by an unseen force. Try hearing perfectly timed footsteps where nobody is there or seeing demonic images that perfectly math the images others have seen. The supernatural exists in the real world. You denying it changes nothing.I've seen demons and things too, but they are not real, just a product of a dreaming state created by the mind.
Says you. Experts can't explain them.It's a case of 100% misattribution.
It's called logical conclusions. You should try it sometime.That's a lot of unsupported assertions right there.
The end could not come until the Jews had returned to Israel.Again, people have predicting the end of the world for thousands of years and they've never been right.
It's boring. Again, people have predicting the end of the world for thousands of years and they've never been right. So why would people predicting the end of the world right now be any different?
There are real ways the Earth as we know it could end. The Book of Revelation doesn't appear to be one of them.
Because all you have done is state it, you offered no proof. Nothing is based on all the evidence unless it's an assumption.How is my statement 'unsupported'? The current life on Earth is the product of 4+ billion years of evolution (based on all available evidence) and we know that the earliest form of life would not contain fully evolved DNA, but would need to arise from simpler precursors.
Because all you have done is state it, you offered no proof. Nothing is based on all the evidence unless it's an assumption.
That's begging the question of proof on your hands and knees. I've done the background reading, you obviously haven't otherwise you would have an actual argument rather then a fallacious rant.So go hit up Google scholar. I'm not here to do your homework for you.
Did too.
"Equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules (called a racemic mixture) were consistently produced by the Miller-Urey procedure. In life, nearly all amino acids that can be used in proteins must be left-handed, and almost all carbohydrates and polymers must be right-handed. The opposite types are not only useless but can also be toxic (even lethal) to life." source
Even with perfect conditions which would have never existed on earth, the experiment was unable to deny the insurmountable issue of chirality.
The obvious naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians are obvious in this statement:Sigh. I really wish Creationists would actually keep with the science rather than spamming outdated AIG/CMI/ICR garbage.
https://phys.org/news/2015-03-discovery-demystifies-life-chirality-phenomenon.html
New Szostak protocell is closest approximation to origin of life and Darwinian evolution so far This makes for a decent read, and provides some good links to sources at the bottom.Because all you have done is state it, you offered no proof. Nothing is based on all the evidence unless it's an assumption.
There never is when you start getting into the specifics.Good. Then we're done here.
New Szostak protocell is closest approximation to origin of life and Darwinian evolution so far This makes for a decent read, and provides some good links to sources at the bottom.
Basically, abiogenesis experiments have already resulted in the formation of very simple cells, so we have decent evidence that the first cells on this planet were much simpler than modern ones. They don't have any organelles and their genetic material is RNA instead of DNA.
Uh, what? Do you not know what that sentence says? RNA COMBINES the properties of an enzyme and information carrier. I can only assume that you don't know that even in modern cells, ribosomes are made of two different segments of RNA. That is, RNA can function like DNA as a template for genes AND make up the enzymes which react to the gene to produce protein.That machinery would not be available in the RNA-world. However, RNA combines the properties of an enzyme and an information carrier (ribozymes).
There's the problem, you don't have ribozymes. Bottom line:
A working version of a complete protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting.
Even with perfect conditions which would have never existed on earth, the experiment was unable to deny the insurmountable issue of chirality.
Unsupportable assertion. "Must have been, so it was" doesn't work here.
That's YOUR lie, not mine.
So which should I believe, my own senses or the unsupported claims of an unbeliever?
Try seeing them when you're wide awake. Try seeing pool balls rolling around on a table struck by an unseen force. Try hearing perfectly timed footsteps where nobody is there or seeing demonic images that perfectly math the images others have seen. The supernatural exists in the real world. You denying it changes nothing.
Says you. Experts can't explain them.
It surprises you that man doesn't have all the answers??
Where were you when God spoke the universe into existence?
He sent people like me to warn you, so that in the end you will be without excuse.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?