Abiogenesis Fact?

Originally posted by @eladar
According to all others in this forum, if science os correct, then the creation account is false.

Not false, just lacking evidence.

Originally posted by @handyandy
Not false, just lacking evidence.

Ah, lacking evidence but true according to you.

Originally posted by @eladar
Ah, lacking evidence but true according to you.

Wrong again. Not proven true does not equal false.

Originally posted by @handyandy
Wrong again. Not proven true does not equal false.

So I take it you are off your meds.

Slow night.

Originally posted by @eladar
So I take it you are off your meds.

Slow night.

Maybe you're just not ready to deal with science.

Originally posted by @eladar
According to all others in this forum, if science os correct, then the creation account is false.

You dispute whether the timeline of history was a cute illusion that God is playing on us or real. Again, it's not a relevant scientific discussion. Normal God-fearing people are perfectly capable of distinguishing these, and the facts don't impact their faith. Why does it upset you?

Originally posted by @handyandy
Maybe you're just not ready to deal with science.

he never will be.

Originally posted by @humy
he never will be.

Hope springs eternal.

Originally posted by @eladar
So I take it you are off your meds.

Slow night.

It's funny how you religious folk condemn science but only those sciences that refute the bible but those sciences having nothing to do with age of Earth or Evolution are strangely ok. You like geology untill it shows a 4 billion year timeline, THEN it is bogus, OBVIOUSLY based on mere assumptions.

Math is safe, nothing refuting the bible there, also cancer research, no problem.

Astronomy, suspect because it indicates timelines 14 billion years deep.

Can't have that, since Earth is 6000 years old and all those fossils were placed there just last week by god for one reason, to confuse the minds of men.

Computer science, OK! Unless massive computer simulations show the possibility of abiogenesis. NO GOOD NOW.

Rocket science, suspect since they brought back moon rocks showing dates billions of years old, now a suspect science.

Genetic research showing evolution, OBVIOUSLY laden with mere assumptions.

Funny how that works.

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-discovery-long-held-evolutionary-theory.html

Here is a science study changing views of evolution, but of course it doesn't go far enough, does it, since it doesn't throw evolution out the window, therefore it is based on OBVIOUS assumptions.

Originally posted by @moonbus
Hope springs eternal.

Actual science I have no problem with. Wildgrass understands this, but the rest of you are duped.

Originally posted by @eladar
Actual science I have no problem with. Wildgrass understands this, but the rest of you are duped.

Define 'actual' science.

Originally posted by @Sonhouse
Define 'actual' science.

any science that doesn't just purely coincidentally show any part or any one of specifically Elader's exact religious beliefs to be wrong.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Define 'actual' science.

Science which you do not need to rely on belief based on natural laws.

Originally posted by @eladar
Science which you do not need to rely on belief based on natural laws.

that would be all of science.
A belief based on natural laws is a rational belief, as opposed to religious belief, based on natural laws because we have evidence of natural laws. What separates rational belief from religious belief is evidence.
So you deny there are natural laws.
Give any example of a science that doesn't involve using or deducing from any known natural law...

Originally posted by @humy
that would be all of science.
A belief based on natural laws is a rational belief, as opposed to religious belief, based on natural laws because we have evidence of natural laws. What separates rational belief from religious belief is evidence.
So you deny there are natural laws.

No, it would not be all of science.

You do not need belief to see that an airplane flies.