It says “theory”. But as I already explained, it doesn’t say that abiogenesis is a theory.
You are grasping at straws in order to avoid admitting you are wrong.
2 Likes
Not for the search I did.
Perhaps you don’t know that Google searches vary by region and user.
1 Like
OK so then I was right none of them say it’s a fact and the top 4 out of 5 links all say that it’s a theory
Two observations:
-
You read that article but clearly did not understand it if you think its author supports anything you have said.
-
Did you just call me a “naturalist materialist atheist”?
3 Likes
The Greek New Testament is what The Bible was translated into. My point is correct we shouldn’t be discussing Greek and it’s not irrelevant to say that Greek is Indo European we’re discussing Semitic religions and languages not the other languages that are they translated into so we should discuss Korean? Because there’s a Korean Christian bible as well?
And I agree with you El Chai is not the same as Nephesh or the breath but the breath is what was blown into Hadam there is a distinction between the biological life and the ever living one yes you are right but my point is to say that biological life comes from the Ever Living One you just said it yourself without El Chai breathing into Hadam he would still be clay correct? Life still comes from life
1 Like
No. The Greek Old Testament was what the Hebrew Old Testament part of the Bible was translated into. The Greek New Testament was written in Koine Greek. It is not a translation from another tongue. (Did Jesus speak in Aramaic? Yes. But the NT was written in Greek. A few scholars still argue for an Aramaic original of a Gospel book or two but that’s a whole 'nother tangent.)
I hope I don’t have to restate this yet again: Because a CHAI God is NOT a biological entity and what he created (NEPHESH creatures) are biological entities, then abiogenesis (biological life from non-biologically-living ingredients) is not in conflict with the Bible.
The fact that in English we speak of both God and biological organisms as alive does nothing to deny abiogenesis. Basic logic tells us that there MUST have been some point in the past when non-biological-ingredients came together to produce the first biological life.
Also, the fact that abiogenesis is possible via chemistry and physics operating on inorganic ingredients and that it is easy to grasp in no way makes it any less fascinating and marvelous!
4 Likes
1.If you’re trying to say that biological life is from the nefesh I can agree to that
2. If you’re saying that God is not just nephesh but he is also the ever living one I can agree to that too
3. If you’re telling me that abiogenesis is one scientific way to look at the earliest processes for the formation of life I can agree to that too.
4. At the end of the day we(you and I at least) both agree that it is still the One God behind all of these processes correct?
Again you clearly do not understand the article because the author is saying that sort of probability calculation in the context of abiogenesis is pointless.
Please punctuate your comments and use the quote feature to avoid this in the future.
2 Likes
Further you say that it’s irrelevant but I find it irrelevant that we are discussing Greek. In fact you yourself have shown that every single word you’ve used so far are all the original Hebrew words not anything that has to do with the Greek language or translation of the New Testament for that matter. Not only are these words only in Hebrew but they are also from the Old Testament originally which for all means and purposes has nothing to do with the New Testament translation into Greek.
Well if you had that knowledge then you would already known that your ascertation was problematic to begin with and could not with deterministic validity prove your point therefore all your assertions afterwards are fallacious.
I think it’s fair to say that consilience works just as well for the false and futile as for the true and useful. One’s failures should at least be multidisciplinary.
4 Likes
He said it is the correct the number for the wrong math. I know this because not only did I read it, I understood it. I doubt you bothered doing either.
2 Likes
At least we don’t need consilience to know that one is the loneliest number.
Indeed! And Jeremiah was a very good friend of mine, albeit a bullfrog.
5 Likes
That would be the link that was 5th on my search, which I am definitely not trying to hide because I linked to it above, which link you apparently didn’t read.
After three attempts to shore up your claim, you’re still on 1 out of 5, not the supposed “every single provided link in a Google search”. You posting a mere two links won’t and can’t support that claim, especially when one of them is a link I already posted.
2 Likes
If you agree that a deity created all the processes then is nothing left to disagree about. Most atheist and agnostics would accept that as a belief and say welcome to science.
2 Likes
Since this thread was getting a little like a pinball machine, I’ve put it on slow mode.
4 Likes
And yet a NEPHESH, just the same.
I’m already in slow mode (for years now) so that’s just as well as far as I’m concerned.
6 Likes
Verily! And Jesus is a very good friend of mine,
that’s why I helped drink his wine!
I think you have confused Jesus with Jeremiah the bullfrog.
4 Likes