[__ Science __ ] The Mystery of Life

[Barbarian]

the corona virus or bacteria may breathe or not and still be alive .but not have the breathe Of God

Biologists have generally considered viruses to be not alive. Bacteria fit the traditional standards for being alive. However, recent discoveries of "intermediate" forms between bacteria and viruses have many scientists reconsidering. Obviously "life" has different meanings in religious thinking and scientific work. And that's fine, if we don't try to mix them.

As you suggested, an analytic approach to the question is not especially helpful in theology.

 

[jasonc]

Precision matters in science. I don't have a problem with fuzzy definitions in religion; that's not a problem. But in science, it depends on the data.

I get that. I'm just opposed to blurring the distinction between these two equally valid approaches.

jewish thought and the post by ag implies that Only God knows what life is.

they used breath to imply something that has life in that argument ,I sit on many stumps to take a break ,ate a few meals on them but wouldn't do that to a dog or animal .yet outside of the smell ,plant decomposition does stink ,try digging water meters full of leaves ,it will have a smell if wet at times .

its not meant to be a precise and they touch on what science says but well the creation trying to grasp something beyond it ,well a,bit futiIle .

 

[Truthfrees]

No, that's wrong too. Perhaps you don't know the difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution?" Even AiG admits that new species evolve. They just came up with their own definition instead of the scientific definition. The new definition seems to be "evolution so great that no one could hope to observe it in a lifetime."

However, informed and honest creationists admit that there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

you tried this on others in another thread and they proved you wrong - the truth is there is very good evidence for creation and far less for evolution - and zero proof - which leaves each person to decide who they believe - creationists or evolutionists

 

[Truthfrees]

jewish thought and the post by ag implies that Only God knows what life is.

they used breath to imply something that has life in that argument ,I sit on many stumps to take a break ,ate a few meals on them but wouldn't do that to a dog or animal .yet outside of the smell ,plant decomposition does stink ,try digging water meters full of leaves ,it will have a smell if wet at times .

its not meant to be a precise and they touch on what science says but well the creation trying to grasp something beyond it ,well a,bit futiIle .

it seems to me God was trying to show that there is something special about breath and life

I AM and YHVH both are a form of chaya - jewish thought on how to pronounce chaya I AM is to strongly exhale and inhale - iow chaya is the sound one makes breathing audibly - the same with YHVH - iya owah - exhale and inhale audibly and that is how to pronounce YHVH - bottom line is there is profound meaning to everything God said and searching it out is a blessing - that's what i got from the op

I AM means exist breathe be become - that also is profound

 

[jasonc]

it seems to me God was trying to show that there is something special about breath and life

I AM and YHVH both are a form of chaya - jewish thought on how to pronounce chaya I AM is to strongly exhale and inhale - iow chaya is the sound one makes breathing audibly - the same with YHVH - iya owah - exhale and inhale audibly and that is how to pronounce YHVH - bottom line is there is profound meaning to everything God said and searching it out is a blessing - that's what i got from the op

I AM means exist breathe be become - that also is profound

you sure ?
yud,hey ,vah,hey is what I heard.

 

[Truthfrees]

you sure ?
yud,hey ,vah,hey is what I heard.

yes - we say yud hey vav hey so as to not pronounce His name - but in jewish discussions of how to pronounce His name the rabbis teach that it sounds like breathing - Y H V H are consonants as well as vowels - Y is the vowel ee like "we" - H is the vowel uh like "good"- V is the vowel ooo like "who"

 

[jasonc]

yes - we say yud hey vav hey so as to not pronounce His name - but in jewish discussions of how to pronounce His name the rabbis teach that it sounds like breathing - Y H V H are consonants as well as vowels - Y is the vowel ee like "we" - H is the vowel uh like "good"- V is the vowel ooo like "who"

my pastor would be able to say it ,he has wrote and spelled Hebrew before with vowels.

 

[Truthfrees]

my pastor would be able to say it ,he has wrote and spelled Hebrew before with vowels.

cool - the pronunciation of YHVH has been kept secret to guard against anyone taking His name in vain but YHVH is in torah 6000 times with instructions to call on His name - it is a precious thing in jewish thinking - so a jew will never say His name out loud for others to hear

 

[jasonc]

cool - the pronunciation of YHVH has been kept secret to guard against anyone taking His name in vain but YHVH is in torah 6000 times with instructions to call on His name - it is a precious thing in jewish thinking - so a jew will never say His name out loud for others to hear

my pronunciation came from one

 

[Barbarian]

No, that's wrong too. Perhaps you don't know the difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution?" Even AiG admits that new species evolve. They just came up with their own definition instead of the scientific definition. The new definition seems to be "evolution so great that no one could hope to observe it in a lifetime."

However, informed and honest creationists admit that there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

you tried this on others in another thread and they proved you wrong

Well, let's take a look, then...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

There's more if you'd like to see more.

he truth is there is very good evidence for creation and far less for evolution

See above. Even informed creationists admit it. And as you learned earlier, evolution is observed every day. Can't get better proof than that. What you seem to be thinking of is macroevolution, the evolution of new species. Many creationists now admit that is a fact, also. Would you like to see that?

 

[Truthfrees]

No, that's wrong too. Perhaps you don't know the difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution?" Even AiG admits that new species evolve. They just came up with their own definition instead of the scientific definition. The new definition seems to be "evolution so great that no one could hope to observe it in a lifetime."

However, informed and honest creationists admit that there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."


Well, let's take a look, then...
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

There's more if you'd like to see more.

See above. Even informed creationists admit it. And as you learned earlier, evolution is observed every day. Can't get better proof than that. What you seem to be thinking of is macroevolution, the evolution of new species. Many creationists now admit that is a fact, also. Would you like to see that?

thanks but no - i don't trust your sources or your ideology - the other creationists on this site make much more sense so i will stick with them

 

[Truthfrees]

my pronunciation came from one

do you mean saying Yud Hey Vav Hey?

yes every jew will say that - or HaShem - or Adonai - or Yah - or The Blessed One - etx when they see יהוה

that is what we are taught to say rather than what is considered the "Unutterable Name"

 

[jasonc]

do you mean saying Yud Hey Vav Hey?

yes every jew will say that - or HaShem - or Adonai - or Yah - or The Blessed One - etx when they see יהוה

that is what we are taught to say rather than what is considered the "Unutterable Name"

she was born in isreal ,I know what she said ,not trying to argue but she said it as I was asking and talking about my,lineage and the bible ,some how that came up .

her parents are orthodox (chassidic)and she isn't closer to conservative .

she would speak Hebrew to her family

 

[Barbarian]

thanks but no - i don't trust your sources or your ideology - the other creationists on this site make much more sense so i will stick with them

Their ideology is YE creationism. They just happen to be biologists and familiar with the evidence. AiG is mostly staffed by non-biologists, although I had a discussion with one of them who has a PhD in chemistry, which is distantly related to the subject.

As I said, it's not something God will base your salvation on, so as long as creationists don't make an idol of their new doctrines, it doesn't really matter.