Soon MAN will be a GOD! HA!
- Thread starter LongShot
- Start date
Stu -ewed mind
Again, the Bible does not say spirt/life is created from dust, only that the body of man is created from dust. It seems that under the influence of ignorance you continue to misinterpret the passage. Either you are simply ignorant of the details of the life/spirit based paradigm and choose to remain so, donât have the ability to rise above your ignorance because you are conceptually impaired or have some sort of understanding but are choosing to present it with a fallacious spin so with your limited ability you can argue a tangent.
Fyi, modern science does claim that life arose from matter and a lot of baseless faith is required for acceptance being that the claim cannot be demonstrated.
Scientific experiments demonstrate:
montmorillonite clay creates a vehicle by which RNA could get into sacks of liquid compounds
I like the scientific term COULD in your post but what I like more is your stretch of this post to in some way infer that matter becomes life. Oh revered Stretchmeister, should I use a little baseless faith and accept what you and modern science are inferring or should I continue to ask for scientific proof.
life as we know it from minerals and material based on hard repeatable demonstrable experiment. Not yet proven yet even so, a mountain of evidence compared to NOTHING that life came from dust breathed upon by God thingy.
Suppose I were to give you all the ready made bio-molecules, RNA, DNA, proteins, lipids, sugars, etc, would your âone day in the future science fairy/daddy Dr. Frankensteinâ be able to produce life by combining these molecules?
âmudâ + could = RNA
RNA is not life!
Actually, the problem here is that you still donât seem to know what life is although supposedly accepting it as distinct from matter. Your ability to confuse the two even though there is a universe(larger body than a mountain) of evidence in the mere existence of conscious/unconscious, animate/inanimate, etc., reiterates the possibility that these subject matters are simply beyond your comprehension level. FOCUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
p.s. The only irony is your continued denial of your baseless faith.
Again, the Bible does not say spirt/life is created from dust, only that the body of man is created from dust. It seems that under the influence of ignorance you continue to misinterpret the passage. Either you are simply ignorant of the details of the life/spirit based paradigm and choose to remain so, donât have the ability to rise above your ignorance because you are conceptually impaired or have some sort of understanding but are choosing to present it with a fallacious spin so with your limited ability you can argue a tangent.
Fyi, modern science does claim that life arose from matter and a lot of baseless faith is required for acceptance being that the claim cannot be demonstrated.
Scientific experiments demonstrate:
montmorillonite clay creates a vehicle by which RNA could get into sacks of liquid compounds
I like the scientific term COULD in your post but what I like more is your stretch of this post to in some way infer that matter becomes life. Oh revered Stretchmeister, should I use a little baseless faith and accept what you and modern science are inferring or should I continue to ask for scientific proof.
life as we know it from minerals and material based on hard repeatable demonstrable experiment. Not yet proven yet even so, a mountain of evidence compared to NOTHING that life came from dust breathed upon by God thingy.
Suppose I were to give you all the ready made bio-molecules, RNA, DNA, proteins, lipids, sugars, etc, would your âone day in the future science fairy/daddy Dr. Frankensteinâ be able to produce life by combining these molecules?
âmudâ + could = RNA
RNA is not life!
Actually, the problem here is that you still donât seem to know what life is although supposedly accepting it as distinct from matter. Your ability to confuse the two even though there is a universe(larger body than a mountain) of evidence in the mere existence of conscious/unconscious, animate/inanimate, etc., reiterates the possibility that these subject matters are simply beyond your comprehension level. FOCUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
p.s. The only irony is your continued denial of your baseless faith.
You made a statement lacking proof of the statement.
Start with an absolute first, then I'll play your game.
A definition is hardly a proof.
Start with an absolute first, then I'll play your game.
A definition is hardly a proof.
Statements and definitions are not proofs.
I don't have to disprove your statement, you have to prove it.
Cheating by whose rules?
I don't have to disprove your statement, you have to prove it.
Quote from situ:
Read again ART I backed up the statement with definition.
Now disprove it. It's not a game.
How odd you only "play" with absolutes. Therefore I take it .... you never play !
ps. it is cheating to edit your post after I posted mine
Cheating by whose rules?
No, you did not prove it. You used relativstic logic to support a relativistic conclusion.
Hardly absolute.
Just garbage in, garbage out. Computers are never wrong, only the programmer.
Hardly absolute.
Just garbage in, garbage out. Computers are never wrong, only the programmer.