All these posts later and you still don't realize I was suggesting what would happen if Zeus appeared before YOU. lol



An expected response from someone who doesn't know how chemistry works.

A non answer. Need to connect the dots, explain how, extablish the connection, provide DNA evidence, pictures, video, how do you know this other than its written on the napkin/bible argument? Etc etc.
Not just shout random words like a child.

Also I would ask you to stop posting here as you are clearly spamming and not respecting spirit of PaRD sub forum. You are welcome to start your own thread or go to Christian sub where you can be sheltered from hard questions and engagement of a civil discourse. Can you be a respectful Christian/human being and just leave thanks.

you never explained how it would be a challenge to my belief. lol sure be a challenge to your belief though "HAHAHAW"

and you dont know how science or logic works
RNA world hypothesis (the darling of abiogenesis)
when actual science was applied 'repeatable it failed across the board, was laughable. the dude said “In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief” and “we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been.” a stunning confession. but some chuckle head from a game trading platform knows better
'RNA World' Paper Retracted
https://www.icr.org/article/rna-world-paper-retracted/



life has no scientific explanation. that its from some kind of naturalistic process only works in the imagination
and since it has no scientific explanation by definition that makes it super natural. we have been round and round about this and all you offer back is to be pig headed about it

supernatural
su·per·nat·u·ral
adjective
adjective: supernatural
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature

I see so you worship the ancient gods of Greece and Rome not the christian god.



You have proved repeatedly that you are the one who knows nothing about logic or science. As such, your opinions on my knowledge are irrelevant and void.



There's a lot of different ways I can refute that. The simplest and laziest is to simply point out that is just one hypothesis. There's a bunch more. I could read it and refute it properly but there's no need neither you nor any other theist would even bother reading what I said before posting another ignorant video from someone who never got through grade school.



Plenty of those 'naturalistic processes' have been conclusively proven. It is only your imagination at play here.



There's nothing supernatural about chemistry, though children do often mistake chemistry for magic so perhaps you can be forgiven for that.

o? it means i believe in the old roman gods. cheeeet

then so is yours see how it works

but you wont u just gona hang around sniping

nope
high priest dawkins
"I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.”
— Richard Dawkins

bu bu bu butt vastet does.......... (snicker)

Yeah that's right. Me? Stop? Nah, as a matter of fact I might not only do the Ecclesiastes Series but also the next Series at Church, just for you.

The Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity. It is described as the Helper. It helps us understand the things that are written.

God will decide who receives the Holy Spirit. For you, you first need to realize you are a sinner and in need of saving.

I can tell based on the lack of the fruit you bear that you don't have the Holy Spirit. This is most obvious in that you fail to interpret Scripture.

How do I know if it's God or Satan? All the evidence we need is in the Bible.



Oh, so you're one of THOSE people. You're one of those 'Science vs Religion' type of people. Are you also one of those 'Goku vs Superman, who would win?' kind of people? If Goku and Superman actually met they'd have the same goal for justice and get along just fine, much to your dismay. Your argument crumbles faster than a house of cards.

It has many scientific explanations or theories backed by evidence. There are things which are still unknown/unexplored but that doesn't discredit its validity. Trying to apply the nonsensical logic that life is supernatural when clearly we have natural proof.
You are trying to assert fallible logic just because there is absence of a thing doesn't make the other true. Just because you don't know what's over horizon doesn't mean there automatically must be unicorns and fairies or supernatural explanation. An absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

The entirety of your argument can be summed up I just believe it. I take a stance that the default reality is supernatural, I don't need proof and you have to prove to me that I am wrong. Even when you provide any evidence I'll just say you are wrong or dismiss it without any thought because "my" belief supercedes your logic and reasoning.

This is closed minded loop. Discussion of a potential explanation other than your bias is not possible. This process involves putting aside your beliefs and taking a neutral stance and considering a different point of view. Therefore I recommend not to waste your time here.

Good day.

You still haven't answered what it is? You just alluded to its an ambiguous "helper" helps understand written things... so is it like a translation device, is it a person? A little unicorn that sits on your shoulder and whispers in your ear? What?

What fruit do I bear? Is this some kind of Confucius euphemism for deez nuts? Speak plain English here thanks.

You saying evidence is in the bible is like saying I am thinking of a number between 1 and 99999 its there somewhere.
I am not willing to go on a fishing expedition. Either provide actual proof directly related to the question or stop wasting time.

so your faith is science will find the answer

No faith requires full trust and belief. My trust is conditional in science. It's a tool that is useful purely by providing proof and evidence. If it doesn't provide concrete evidence it makes likely/probable theories backed by partial evidence. Combine that with my own observation and reasoning that is enough for now.
I trust it enough based on past performance and I am secure enough not to fill my head with superstitious fantasies just because I may not know something. Which is both unproductive and irrational.