Yes. But only expect gullible people to be persuaded by that because you lack facts. Any of the thousands of other religion gives a different answer. I don't want to bet on your's to be right, especially in view of the fact there are errors and contradictions in the bible.

Scientists do admit they don't know the answer, but they're working on it. I don't think that they will be able to prove how life began; but they may find a way in which it can begin. As has been the case time and again, such as for bolts of lightning which are no longer being attributed to some god, chances are there isn't need for a god there either.

Bert

rainbow wrote:

sturmgewehr wrote:This and the Beginning of the Universe is a Theist's strongest argument, I don't really know much about biology nor I am good at physics so when I debate them in some kind of topic they will come back with Origin of life, consciousness and the beginning of the universe and pretty much I have to stop the discussion.

No problem. You can always argue on the basis of your faith.

Faith in what? Oh sorry, you weren't trying to make sense, were you? Just dipping your line in the water as usual.

bert wrote:I don't think that they will be able to prove how life began; but they may find a way in which it can begin.

Who knows? It may be demonstrated that there really is only 'one true sequence'.

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

sturmgewehr wrote:This and the Beginning of the Universe is a Theist's strongest argument, I don't really know much about biology nor I am good at physics so when I debate them in some kind of topic they will come back with Origin of life, consciousness and the beginning of the universe and pretty much I have to stop the discussion.

No problem. You can always argue on the basis of your faith.

Faith in what? Oh sorry, you weren't trying to make sense, were you? Just dipping your line in the water as usual.

It's a little funny how irrelevant rainbows little quips have become to most of the membership here. A little snipe here and there, nothing too serious or substantive of note. He's mostly engaged for the entertainment value I gather.

Rumraket wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

sturmgewehr wrote:This and the Beginning of the Universe is a Theist's strongest argument, I don't really know much about biology nor I am good at physics so when I debate them in some kind of topic they will come back with Origin of life, consciousness and the beginning of the universe and pretty much I have to stop the discussion.

No problem. You can always argue on the basis of your faith.

Faith in what? Oh sorry, you weren't trying to make sense, were you? Just dipping your line in the water as usual.

It's a little funny how irrelevant rainbows little quips have become to most of the membership here. A little snipe here and there, nothing too serious or substantive of note. He's mostly engaged for the entertainment value I gather.

Please don't personalise the discussion.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:
No problem. You can always argue on the basis of your faith.

Faith in what? Oh sorry, you weren't trying to make sense, were you? Just dipping your line in the water as usual.

It's a little funny how irrelevant rainbows little quips have become to most of the membership here. A little snipe here and there, nothing too serious or substantive of note. He's mostly engaged for the entertainment value I gather.

Please don't personalise the discussion.

I agree.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:
No problem. You can always argue on the basis of your faith.

Faith in what? Oh sorry, you weren't trying to make sense, were you? Just dipping your line in the water as usual.

It's a little funny how irrelevant rainbows little quips have become to most of the membership here. A little snipe here and there, nothing too serious or substantive of note. He's mostly engaged for the entertainment value I gather.

Please don't personalise the discussion.

Request denied.

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:


Faith in what? Oh sorry, you weren't trying to make sense, were you? Just dipping your line in the water as usual.

It's a little funny how irrelevant rainbows little quips have become to most of the membership here. A little snipe here and there, nothing too serious or substantive of note. He's mostly engaged for the entertainment value I gather.

Please don't personalise the discussion.

Request denied.

And people wonder why there are so many questions, posts and threads about what can be said and what can't.

John

z8000783 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
It's a little funny how irrelevant rainbows little quips have become to most of the membership here. A little snipe here and there, nothing too serious or substantive of note. He's mostly engaged for the entertainment value I gather.

Please don't personalise the discussion.

Request denied.

And people wonder why there are so many questions, posts and threads about what can be said and what can't.

John

If Rainbow desists from making the repeated nonsensical one-line interjections into entirely unrelated threads that can have only the purpose of garnering a reaction from his target, I will cease commenting on his behavior. Cause and effect.

So you do not have a choice between commenting on the content of a post and the behaviour of a poster then?

John

Edit: left out the not.

Sometimes, they are one and the same.

Only if you think it so.

John

z8000783 wrote:So you do not have a choice between commenting on the content of a post and the behaviour of a poster then?

John

Edit: left out the not.

Of course I do, as do you.

So how is it cause and effect then?

John

z8000783 wrote:So how is it cause and effect then?

John

Cause -> effect.

So if there is a cause there will always be the effect. Where does the decision making come into it?

John

z8000783 wrote:So if there is a cause there will always be the effect. Where does the decision making come into it?

John

Stochasticism.

Indeed, as I thought.

John

z8000783 wrote:Indeed, as I thought.

John

That's amazing that you could predict a stochastic effect - you should formalise it.

It was pre-determined.

John