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.
There is no evidence in any of the links that you gave (I'm not going to buy the lecture series) that non-living matter has become living matter. If there was evidence of non-living matter becoming living matter the entire world would be aware of that event. Now if some evidence exists out there that is being kept under wraps for some reason and you are aware of it then by all means give me a link.
You made the claim that there were models of the multi-verse that didn't need an something to bring about the first universe that all the other universes have come from. The first universe is just as material and physical as any other to be able to give the attributes to the others so it too had to have had a beginning too.
That would be awesome. My little Addy has played two times so far and she kicked the ball all the way down to the goal! I was soooo proud of her. Then she runs off the field to give us all high fives.
Gonna have to work on that one. 
Don't move the goalposts; that was not the claim. The claim you made was "could ever", for that that we only need circumstantial evidence and the like. Did you actually watch thorough the videos?
But you said, "There is no evidence, anywhere that informs us that non-living matter could ever become living matter". It's your job to get out there and prove your claim right.
I didn't have a preconceived conclusion prior to asking. I was open unlike assuming that God was just a fictional character in a book.
I'm not limiting evidence to the present. Do you have evidence that shows non-living matter becoming living matter?
Having a thought in your head does not equal God talking directly to you. We have thoughts continually in our heads.
No, circumstantial evidence doesn't provide evidence that non-living matter became living matter. It provides evidence that non-living molecules interact with minerals, it is not evidence that this interaction could ever become living matter.
There are important differences in the way I think and the thoughts that are communicated that are attributed to God. The thoughts that are God's generally are instructing me and illuminating things I don't want to hear about myself. With thoughts that do not necessarily have anything to do with me personally are usually confirmed by at least two or three other occurrences that are all "saying" the same thing.
Doesn't mean there won't be.
There you go, the same for me. I was searching for truth myself. I really had no preconceived ideas about whether God really existed or not. I had no commitment to any one belief. I wasn't an atheist, or agnostic or a believer. I was just simply curious. Did a God exist? If so what God or all gods might exist. If God didn't exist that would not change my life one iota at the time. Yet, I did wonder how so many Christians were soooo sure that their God existed. I didn't get it. I never got it until God reveled it to me.
I have no way of knowing whether or not that is true. I don't think that you believe that you have. Is there something in your life that you know from knowing what God expects or looks badly on that you do regularly in your life? That you know God would think is a sin?
The fact that the very next line goes to this happening is a very good indication that this is the fulfillment of that very thing. Not all the disciples were present which even supports the fact that only a few of them would witness Him coming into His kingdom. Something of this much importance would make it seem logical that all of them would be there to witness it. Not only does it say that this event occurs but that "after these sayings" it occurs. So it links them to the event. More importantly, if they didn't see the kingdom if they believed that this saying of Jesus was about the actual earthly kingdom coming and then they don't see it why would they record it knowing it didn't happen? If you are making up a story, you are going to have to make sure it fits with all your facts. I mean this is a pretty big error on Jesus's part if He really meant the final coming.
You do realize that Jesus did this all the time. His references to His death were vague at times. The fact that Luke links the two events together by writing, "after these sayings".
You are ignoring other comments made by Jesus. He has said to His disciples that the second coming will be only when God says it will and God the father is the only one that knows when it will happen. So if He didn't know when it would happen how would He know if any of the disciples would even still be alive?
So are you asking why God can't save everyone by altering their will for even a moment? I don't know. Perhaps He can and doesn't. I don't have enough information to determine whether that is possible in regard to His overall plan. It seems He has done it in the past and so we know He has the ability but why He doesn't for everyone can't be known.
I really don't know. I don't like to determine life and death scenarios, I don't have that right.
. Fair enough.
This is a category error. Do you equate something we know exists such as evil people and faeries?
I find a group of people that sacrifice their babies by fire to a god to be an evil population. I think that they did uniformly do evil as a population and as such would be considered evil in my estimation. Maybe not each and everyone of the children would turn out to be mass killers if they were to even continue the practices of their group, that would continue an evil population.
I went back to see what this is in reference to and I can't find it. How were we comparing science and good reasons for jew behavior?
Who knows? I sure don't.
Lets put it simply...we can not have God's nature because we are not God. Can't be God and only God is sinless.
Do you think that punishing a child for wrong doing and loving them is contradictory? Do you think that God should have just created those that would accept His gift of salvation?
That is not what I said and you know it.
What is your point? That God shouldn't violate free will under any circumstance including allowing children in heaven when they haven't chosen to be there; so it would be best if they were allowed to go to hell? Or are you upset that you haven't been given the same opportunity to not have a choice? Emotionally, it seems right. But do you think that Stalin or Hitler should have that same opportunity to not have a choice? What of all the millions that were killed and suffered horrible deaths crying out for some sort of justice for their lives being cut short? Does God just say that He's sorry they were done wrong but there is nothing He can do about it?
Yes.
That is false. I have included the information below.
1. We have evidence that the plants on land before the Cambrian would have very complex metabolic capabilities. There is no fossil evidence as of yet but scientists think this could be because they are soft and would not preserve well.
Actually no, I think that when you look at the new evidence that we have it is very parsimonious with that evidence to conclude that plant life, life that molecularly are akin to modern plants.
Actually, first of all, it is very common for new fossil evidence to arise that moves first appearances millions and millions of years earlier. So the fossil record is not absolute. Secondly, you are claiming that there is no evidence that supports the belief that plants/angiosperms might have been present before the Cambrian explosion. That is simply not true. It was once believed that the early earth was a barren and had no plant life, but now scientists know that is not the case. They have found evidence that shows that oxygen was in the atmosphere in levels that are too high for just regular chemical reactions and that it must have been biological. They also claim: "The fact oxygen is there requires oxygenic photosynthesis, a very complex metabolic pathway, very early in Earth's history," said researcher Sean Crowe, a biogeochemist at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. "That tells us it doesn't take long for biology to evolve very complex metabolic capabilities."
I just provided evidence to support my position that is based on several different criteria. What are you basing your on? Rare fossilization. Yes, that happens and supports my position. Limited area? Why and isn't there any other evidence to support it? You are explaining why there isn't evidence, where I am giving evidence to support my position. Do you see the difference now?
Which supports my position and mine includes actual evidence rather than a lack of evidence.
Yes I have. At the time this passage is addressing there were no dino's or whales or even octopuses.
How can you say it isn't supported by scripture? It is Scripture we are discussing.
What basis are you refusing to consider my timeline? The passages fit with scientific evidence and are in chronological order in the same way our evidence records.[/Quote][/Quote]
How do you know when someone else is talking to you, when they are not facing you?
They speak in a different way than you do right. We don't hear people on this forum but we can recognize when someone comes back by another name by the way they word their posts. This is the same context. When I read your posts, I don't hear the words but when I read them I read them with my brain and your thoughts sound like my thoughts inside my head but I know they are yours and can tell the difference not only because I know you are not me but that what you say is not what I would say.
See above.
