Natural Explanation Origins of Life

Originally posted by @eladar
So you believe life came into existence by way of abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis isn't a model. It's just a word that means life must have gotten started.

Originally posted by @eladar
God is not bound by natural laws. Even if there is a natural way to do it, we do not know it. Perhaps God does or perhaps God used a miracle.

This is exactly you cannot use scientific methods on religious matters. This is exactly you cannot use religious reasonings in scientific matters.
Too many maybes, too many perhapses, too many 'god works in mysterious ways', too many miracles, to explain the unexplainables...

Originally posted by @eladar
God is not bound by natural laws. Even if there is a natural way to do it, we do not know it. Perhaps God does or perhaps God used a miracle.

My point, that you just helped me make, is that abiogenesis does not overthrow God. He could have created the conditions that allowed life to have started in an abiological way. His creation of the natural laws would be the thing that is beyond understanding, not the laws themselves.

Originally posted by @js357
My point, that you just helped me make, is that abiogenesis does not overthrow God. He could have created the conditions that allowed life to have started in an abiological way. His creation of the natural laws would be the thing that is beyond understanding, not the laws themselves.

My point is that the belief in something that you can't see or recreate is faith, not science.

Those who reject creation are hypocrites if they say they only believe in science.

Originally posted by @eladar
Those who reject creation are hypocrites if they say they only believe in science.

Those who hate science, like creationists, and still use the fruit of science, like internet, are hypocrites.

Originally posted by @eladar
...
Those who reject creation are hypocrites if they say they only believe in science....

Science is a tool. A consistently good one.

Myth belief on a good day is fun. I do love the gods. All of them. Even the ones I hate.

Originally posted by @eladar
My point is that the belief in something that you can't see or recreate is faith, not science.

Those who reject creation are hypocrites if they say they only believe in science.

Can you see or recreate Napoleon's birth?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Can you see or recreate Napoleon's birth?

Scientifically?
Emphatically not.
Historically?
Without question.

Next.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Those who hate science, like creationists, and still use the fruit of science, like internet, are hypocrites.

Those who hate faith, like some scientists and still use the fruit of faith, like their many speculative theories, are hypocrites.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
Those who hate faith, like some scientists and still use the fruit of faith, like their many speculative theories, are ...

what are these "fruit of faith" from "speculative theories"?
Give just any one example of these "speculative theories" that requires "faith" i.e. no evidence to support it, but which scientists 'benefited' from...

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-eclipse-reasonwhy-people-disbelieve-scientists.html

Originally posted by @humy
what are these "fruit of faith" from "speculative theories"?
Give just any one example of these "speculative theories" that requires "faith" i.e. no evidence to support it, but which scientists 'benefited' from...

I can't answer a question based on your error in understanding what I wrote.
Check your thinking and try again.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
I can't answer a question based on your error in understanding what I wrote.
Check your thinking and try again.

In other words, you were talking made-up nonsense just to troll.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
I can't answer a question based on your error in understanding what I wrote.
Check your thinking and try again.

What is the problem with that question? what are these "fruit of faith" from "speculative theories"?
And the other? Give just any one example of these "speculative theories" that requires "faith"?
What didn't you understand?

Why are you so afraid to answer these questions? I don't get it! I just don't get it.
Are you scared of the answer? Don't you have any answer? Are you evading the answers? Or are you just trolling.

Let me answer the last question for you! "Give just any one example of these "speculative theories" that requires "faith"?"
Flat earth is a speculative theory that require a lot of faith to believe in.
Same thing goes for the landing-on-moon hoax theory. They who deny the landing doesn't know much about it, lack skills to find the information, or are spot-on stupid.

Because the truth is out there, ready for anyone to absorb. Only those who want to remain in ignorance avoid the evidence and regress to faith.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
What is the problem with that question? [b]what are these "fruit of faith" from "speculative theories"?
And the other? Give just any one example of these "speculative theories" that requires "faith"?
What didn't you understand?

Why are you so afraid to answer these questions? I don't get it! I just don't get it.
Are you scared of the an ...[text shortened]... e to absorb. Only those who want to remain in ignorance avoid the evidence and regress to faith.[/b]

Good luck getting it to reply with any kind of forthrightness. It doesn't DO forthright. It DOES deflection. Then more deflection, anything to keep it from making a forthright statement.