Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're obviously way behind on recent scientific discoveries. Go talk to rifleman, he's much more eloquent on the subject than I am.
I would face down rifleman on the subject without hesitation. My subscription to Nature is current. I suspect he is savvy enough to recognize that though.
No, and one reason why would be that we do not yet know that all that goo was inorganic,do we?Or a hundred or thousands other possibilities.
Sorry Mystic, but ,as with our predecessors,we alive right now may never learn past "I don't know the answer to that"
Most, or I assume most, atheists are honest enough...have egos that can handle it....to say "I don't know...wish I did".
But 'we' won't make up something just so "We" have an answer before we die
This seems to be the blind spot in your intellect . . . you already DO make up something different from God and call it "Nature" . . . to house all the evidence we learn about it . . . and to deny it as evidence for God. There is nothing scientific that can distinguish God from "Nature" . . . only different preferences and beliefs about those things we are completely ignorant about and have covered over with scientific sounding euphemisms.
In the Bible on Genesis 6:4 ``there were giants in those days``.... these were the days After Adam had passed away about 5,000 years ago... and the the Lord God reason that HIS Spirit could not be with this evil man and the Lord God planned to renew the earth ......
Did you see this from the OP's link?
Quote:
Within an ancient burial mound near the town of Sayre in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, skeletons measuring approximately 7 feet in length were
discovered in the 1800s. But the most remarkable feature of these tall
skeletons was not their height, but the strange horn-like protrusions above
the brow region on their skulls. It was estimated that they were buried
around 1200 AD. According to some sources, the skeletons were sent to the
"American Investigating Museum" in Philadelphia, and vanished.
Simple reasoning would tell you that Noah and/or his family were full or part Nephilim. Really don't see any problem in the Biblical account of the flood there. Sons of God were simply those humans who still believed in and followed there God and creator.
What reasoning would this be? How did you come to the conclusion that the entire human race, descended from Noah, is "Nephilim?"
This seems to be the blind spot in your intellect . . . you already DO make up something different from God and call it "Nature" . . . to house all the evidence we learn about it . . . and to deny it as evidence for God. There is nothing scientific that can distinguish God from "Nature" . . . only different preferences and beliefs about those things we are completely ignorant about and have covered over with scientific sounding euphemisms.
nature.....small 'n'...just a word with a commonly accepted description for occurances not caused by man.
"We don't know"...not too many scientific sounding euphemisms in that statement....just honesty. "only different preferences and beliefs about those things we are completely ignorant about and have covered over with scientific sounding euphemisms"
Can't you see that this is what you're doing?
nature.....small 'n'...just a word with a commonly accepted description for occurances not caused by man.
"We don't know"...not too many scientific sounding euphemisms in that statement....just honesty. "only different preferences and beliefs about those things we are completely ignorant about and have covered over with scientific sounding euphemisms"
Can't you see that this is what you're doing?
No, he can't. Really, he can't. You're better to save your fingers.
nature.....small 'n'...just a word with a commonly accepted description for occurances not caused by man.
Ad Populum BS . . . it is a euphemism for "occurrences caused by Nature". . . which is some inscrutable Creator-God responsible for our existence and everything in our reality.
Quote:
"We don't know"...not too many scientific sounding euphemisms in that statement....just honesty.
Nonsense . . . it is made scientific sounding by euphemistic explanations of our ignorance . . . like "random mutation" "natural" selection "survival drive"
Quote:
"only different preferences and beliefs about those things we are completely ignorant about and have covered over with scientific sounding euphemisms"
Can't you see that this is what you're doing?
Not even close . . . I accept all the science . . . I reject all the extensions beyond the data using euphemisms . . . as if they were explanations of our ignorance and as if they eliminated any need to explain our inscrutable Creator.
No, he can't. Really, he can't. You're better to save your fingers.
Told you. He really believes that we, waiting for some evidence of anything 'godlike' are somehow pasting terminology on our areas of unknowing, whereas he is pasting all sorts of scientific jargon over wot he wots not of and using that as a pretext for calling it 'god' - which through his mystic experience is what he was setting out to prove all the time. It isn't science, it isn't even as good as Creationism. It's mumbo - jumbo, sonjo.
Told you. He really believes that we, waiting for some evidence of anything 'godlike' are somehow pasting terminology on our areas of unknowing, whereas he is pasting all sorts of scientific jargon over wot he wots not of and using that as a pretext for calling it 'god' - which through his mystic experience is what he was setting out to prove all the time. It isn't science, it isn't even as good as Creationism. It's mumbo - jumbo, sonjo.
Well. . . at least you've stopped fraudulently trying to paint me as a Creationist to discredit me . . . although your "mumbo jumbo" seems more like an admission of your intellectual failings and inability to assimilate the science that drives my hypothesis.
In the normal course of usage, the concept of "God" is distinctly different than the concept of "nature".
God is conceived of as a singular sapient being, while nature is neither a singular being nor sapient.
It's a little like saying "we all believe in unicorns, but not everyone believes that they have a horn or are magical." Thus trying to make an argument in the existence of a unicorn based on the known existence of a horse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're better to save your fingers.
Told you. He really believes that we, waiting for some evidence of anything 'godlike' are somehow pasting terminology on our areas of unknowing, whereas he is pasting all sorts of scientific jargon over wot he wots not of and using that as a pretext for calling it 'god' - which through his mystic experience is what he was setting out to prove all the time. It isn't science, it isn't even as good as Creationism. It's mumbo - jumbo, sonjo.
