🙏 Life after death? ✨

The scientific method consists of 7 steps: observation, question, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, analysis, and conclusion.

If all works properly, we will come to an accurate conclusion. Whereas improper/inaccurate "science" results in flawed theory and views, meaning the approach in understanding a process must change. The more advanced the question, the more often scientists are wrong, but there are indeed definitive truths ‐ it is simply a matter of discovering them.

That's the point, we might not know that our current understanding of any given phenomenon is correct. In science, there is no such thing as forever true. Everything is just hypothesis and drafts of reality. Accuracy improves with more research. It is also part of scientific thinking to accept that we may never be able to explain everything or anything completely. A lot of people fail to see how incomplete the picture science paints of the world actually is. Most ranches of scientific knowledge are still in their infancy and have only scraped the surface.

I find the problem with science is that too many who claim to be scientists actually aren't. They have decided what things are true and then they try to disregard proof that does not fit their idea of what the end result should be. Then there are brilliant ones, of course, LIke Rupert Sheldrake who actually delve into these matters with curiosity and passion. His books are brilliant too, if someone is looking for interesting reading. =)

That's quit easily - that's our children, there is a part of us in them, and that is our life after death.

Well said and fully agree with this statement. And it is a joy to witness in close proximity on a daily basis! No other life experience can compete with that - at least in my opinion.

@Azryffel, your curiosity is infectious! Loved reading your thoughts (and will likely read the author recommendation, thank you)♥

To your point though, I think we do base our scientific endeavors on what one might call a "forever truth"... I'd even go as far as to say the pursuit itself ‐ the desire to understand, to discover ‐ is based on the belief that we CAN know, hence we try (random thought: Science comes from the root Latin word "scire". In other words, "to know")😊

Studies and expirements explained by atheists often amuse me, especially those involving genetics, as there is a sort of nearsightedness regarding how data is looked at. The way DNA (and the whole of the universe) is made reveals a careful order, with rules and laws capable of being both read and understood. The fact this is even possible ought to make the inherent design very evident to the reader! DNA is known as a code, which is by definition an intelligent system with the purpose of communicating a message. Codes are not random, and just as learning a language allows you to understand and read from it, so too does learning the laws of our universe. To put it simply, if language had no meaning or design, you could not read or understand it. The same is true for God's Creation.

"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." ‐ Galileo Galilei

Studies and expirements explained by atheists often amuse me, especially those involving genetics, as there is a sort of nearsightedness regarding how data is looked at. The way DNA (and the whole of the universe) is made reveals a careful order, with rules and laws capable of being both read and understood. The fact this is even possible ought to make the inherent design very evident to the reader! DNA is known as a code, which is by definition an intelligent system with the purpose of communicating a message. Codes are not random, and just as learning a language allows you to understand and read from it, so too does learning the laws of our universe. To put it simply, if language had no meaning or design, you could not read or understand it. The same is true for God's Creation.

How about God creating very simple rules that, when intertwined, can produce much more complex systems rather than making him intervene in the middle to make a work that seems rather questionable in terms of effficiency? On my part, I find this much more impressive, given the chaos and countless outcomes you can get by slightly changing initial conditions of a system.

The code you mention is essentially a metaphore used in biology to make it simpler to imagine, but it's always arising from more "primitive" rules of chemistry and, even earlier, physics.

More than that, I believe we are here mixing the territory of science and the one of religion by mixing the "how" and the "why". That said, I would have never get closer to religious belief with an engineering God coding like a dork, I find it slightly reductant...

How about God creating very simple rules

Despite what the untrained eye might think, the systems in place are actually extraordinarily intricate, even down to the cell and molecule. Scientists are discovering more and more detail in His design 🙂

that, when intertwined, can produce much more complex systems rather than making him intervene in the middle to make a work that seems rather questionable in terms of effficiency?

I believe I've mentioned this before, but the Bible says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The key word here is the beginning. He finished the work ‐ meaning the systems for sustainability are already in place.

The atheistic faith however, believes not in one miracle (like God creating), but a whole series of miracles ‐ something from nothing, order from randomness, life from non‐life...and we haven't even scratched the surface of how vastly impossible it would be for us to come about along every step of the way. It is more outlandish to me than if someone claimed a toddler could slap a keyboard with a towel and write up three volumes of American History!

The code you mention is essentially a metaphore

It is actually a description, and of a real system! Put into place by an intelligent mind.

To give you an example,

let's say the words you are reading now were NOT written by a thinking brain. But then you realise they would be jibberish, without meaning or readability. It'd look something like, "sgishefaufxejtbaryebvxo". And to say that lacks a mind would be a stretch too, because the very letters themselves were designed!

I hope you see where I am coming from, and why all the greatest founding scientists and philosophers who observed Creation found God to be the One responsible for it all.

Ah it's foolish to be so proud to believe that ADHD keyboard warriors like us could think more deeply on questions we merely ponder in passing, while the giants before us devoted their hearts, minds and entire lives to such studies.

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." ‐ Issac Newton

Despite what the untrained eye might think, the systems in place are actually extraordinarily intricate, even down to the cell and molecule. Scientists are discovering more and more detail in His design 🙂

You can't come with condescending "untrained eye" to justify your belief and support it with "there is complexity, thus it supports design". This, and the way the sentence was cut, shows a clear misunderstanding of my previous statement and how simple rules can give birth to very complex systems. This is a twist.
Moreover and like I said, this sounds like a rather reductant view of a tinker God who could not define all initial parameters, making an initial flawed desiggn that needs to adjust his creation later on, like a mechanic on an engine.

Science favours the principle of parsimony, the most elegant and least cost path as explanation for how things are. An intelligent Design, especially in biology where neo-darwinism explains biological complexity emerges fairly well already, is far from being the parsimonious idea. It doesn't say anything about the existence of a God or the origin of life, let's this be clear, but the "how" question has a reasonable explanation.

The atheistic faith however, believes not in one miracle (like God creating), but a whole series of miracles ‐ something from nothing, order from randomness, life from non‐life...and we haven't even scratched the surface of how vastly impossible it would be for us to come about along every step of the way. It is more outlandish to me than if someone claimed a toddler could slap a keyboard with a towel and write up three volumes of American History!

There is a contradiction in mentioning that Christianism needs one miracle only while saying that God needed to "finish the work"; that implies several miracles.
Furthermore, limiting all the contradictory views to yours as "atheistic" won't strenghten your point, for a bunch of theists themselves also embrace different conceptions of God, just like the one I previously mentioned.

Taking the risk of repeating myself: complexity can emerge from simplicity. The very evidence of that in your daily life is that you can make gastonomic cuisine with the same rules you use to make boiled potatoes only. More scientifically, the theor of Evolution or just Chaos Theory show that very well and are very imaged.

Something important to notice here, since I strongly suspect it is the case: randomness isn't how things work in evolution/biology. You can also be deterministic to the extreme and still not call for intervention of God to explain biological complexity or the state of the Universe. In fact, this is very much my own case in Evolution.

It is actually a description, and of a real system! Put into place by an intelligent mind.

To give you an example,

let's say the words you are reading now were NOT written by a thinking brain. But then you realise they would be jibberish, without meaning or readability. It'd look something like, "sgishefaufxejtbaryebvxo". And to say that lacks a mind would be a stretch too, because the very letters themselves were designed!

No, no, it's a metaphore, the real system is a chain of nucleotides that obey to biochemichal rules, themselves following physical rules. There is no such thing as an obscure code behind DNA and a good hint of that is how some nucleotides can potentially be replaced...

To give you an example;
When you put your hand on fire, heat energy is transferred to your hand, hydrogen bonds weakens and end up breaking, whereas enzymes reach a temperature under which they stop functionning properly: proteins start to unfold. Heat will evaporate water, increase the pressure within your cells and tissues making cells probably explode and your tissues get damaged,; later, your skin will adopt a delicious smell of pork, alongside a grilled bbq coloration.

No code needed, no design at this stage (just like at DNA stage), just simple physical and chemical reactions leading to a complex disaster I barely started to scratch explaining.

I hope you see where I am coming from, and why all the greatest founding scientists and philosophers who observed Creation found God to be the One responsible for it all.

Ah it's foolish to be so proud to believe that ADHD keyboard warriors like us could think more deeply on questions we merely ponder in passing, while the giants before us devoted their hearts, minds and entire lives to such studies.

That's cherry picking mixed with call to authority and historical bias. As far as I notice, a vast part of the scientific community is irrelegious nowaday. As a personal experience, I also have met more people losing their faith than gaining it...

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." ‐ Issac Newton

This refers to previous scientists setting the stepping stone for Newton's discovery, but careful with the giants, because when you can very much find any dead good scientist or philosopher to justify your point of view. I could very well quote Laplace to say how God is not a needed hypothesis here. (which is also why I suggested another belief in my previous statement; God setting initial conditions in such a way that the world as we know emerges; thhis is, however, only a belief , which I myself subscribe to, and not any proof of existence).
I feel forced to specify that it doesn't dismiss the existence of God; it's just not necessary to explain some things (could have used Dawkins else...)

Again, here, I think there is a lot of "why" mixing with "how", creating further misunderstandings. Here, you ask "why complexity?", whereas "how complexity?" is a question one can answer.

You can't come with condescending "untrained eye" to justify your belief and support it with "there is complexity, thus it supports design".

Dear friend, I did not mean to condescend. If I did, I apologize. When I speak of the untrained eye, I am referring to even my own. Perhaps I should have said "naked eye", but some complexity can be seen, so I did not.

As for the entirety of my belief being hinged on the complexity of God's design ‐ this is simply not true. It would be like reducing your belief to "there is complexity, thus it supports uncomplicated undesign."

There is evidence beyond complexity: physical, moral, philosophical, etc. I have mentioned several in my previous posts.

This, and the way the sentence was cut, shows a clear misunderstanding of my previous statement and how simple rules can give birth to very complex systems.

I'm not sure if you read on after the first misunderstanding, but that was one of the full sentences I actually included! Normally I will not quote the entire thing, rather a reference to it, so the person I'm talking to understands what is being referenced, but I liked the spark of enthusiasm.

As for the "simple rules" ‐ I have a question for you: what do you believe a "rule" is? I understand it as an authoritative direction for conduct (governed by an entity more complex than the thing created). An example: 8 men on a field want to enjoy the grass. If all of them decided to do so on their own, we would have chaos. But the invention of a set of rules (which came from the unknowably complex mind) brought about Football.

It doesn't say anything about the existence of a God or the origin of life, let's this be clear, but the "how" question has a reasonable explanation.

Yes, and because your faith, belief and theories regarding this follow modern darwinianism, the logical and reasonable answer I offer (A Creator) will likely not be considered.

There is a contradiction in mentioning that Christianism needs one miracle only while saying that God needed to "finish the work"; that implies several miracles.

Oh no, just one. If an intelligent entity created the universe, it easily explains all the impossibly improbable steps to our development along the way. Rather than everything coming from nothing, an Intelligent Creator designed it. Instead of miraculously developing over billions of years from a tadpole ‐ that Creator made us from dirt (and scientists discovered we are in fact made of dirt!).

In the words of a famous atheist: "the essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale" To that I say, without a Creator, yes.

Don't get me wrong though, the Christian life is a miracle daily. The fact God could love and transform a wretched thing like me is beyond my understanding☺

Taking the risk of repeating myself: complexity can emerge from simplicity. The very evidence of that in your daily life is that you can make gastonomic cuisine with the same rules you use to make boiled potatoes only. More scientifically, the theor of Evolution or just Chaos Theory show that very well and are very imaged.

I disagree, as I only know the opposite to be so. But what you said about creating cuisine was an excellent observation! Many atheists cannot believe we are made from the same material without coming from each other. Clearly, a chef can take the same two ingredients in differing ratios to make unique meals (no, the spaghetti did not come from the meatball, just as hamsters did not come from the amoeba kekek).

You can also be deterministic to the extreme and still not call for intervention of God to explain biological complexity or the state of the Universe.

Don't you ever look at your life and wonder why you are living? Why you have a heart? One of the biggest issues I have with atheism is the lack of moral responsibility that entails. If we are just blobs of evolved soup, why should we care if someone is stabbed? If truth is relative, I could live life my way, you live life yours. But no, God gave us a heart, a working mind, a conscience.

God's intervention is unnecessary as He has put the laws in place already, including the moral law written on our hearts. Jumping out a window results in splat, and in the same vein, breaking the law rightly condemns you to prison. All have sinned and broken God's law, all rightly deserve justice for it. But Jesus Christ came to take our place, pay our fines and suffer for us on the cross. All we have to do is repent (turn from the stuff we know is morally wrong) and trust in Jesus. God cannot lie, and His promise is everlasting life with a new heart with new desires that love Goodness and Light rather than darkness. I pray you will think about this soberly and come to know Christ. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen

When you put your hand on fire, heat energy is transferred to your hand, hydrogen bonds weakens and end up breaking, whereas enzymes reach a temperature under which they stop functionning properly: proteins start to unfold. Heat will evaporate water, increase the pressure within your cells and tissues making cells probably explode and your tissues get damaged,; later, your skin will adopt a delicious smell of pork, alongside a grilled bbq coloration.

Love the nerding out! And yes, this is part of the many laws God has put into effect. These physical and chemical reactions you describe are simply observations of a process, not an origin, motivating force, or reason for them.

thhis is, however, only a belief , which I myself subscribe to, and not any proof of existence

We agree here. However, one could go as far as to claim there are no proofs that I exist! Who's to say I'm not just a bad dream you're having?

Of course we are thinking, rational beings as well as compassionate. You are not a blob of worthless mush Lianshen. I value you as a beautiful person made in the image of God. You are loved greatly♥

Again, your response shows clear misunderstanding of what I was sharing, notably on science and evolution, so I will just quickly reply:

As for the "simple rules" ‐ I have a question for you: what do you believe a "rule" is?

I mentionned example with the Theory of Evolution and Chaotic Theory. Football sounds like a rather shaky analogy. I also will repeat: you are blending "how" and "why" here again.

Yes, and because your faith, belief and theories regarding this follow modern darwinianism, the logical and reasonable answer I offer (A Creator) will likely not be considered.

This is the most revealing sentence I think. It shows that you have completely put aside what I explicited and that you have a bias on evolution. Darwin himself mentioned, very fairly, that the theory of Evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive; it just isn't needed to reflects the evolution of life. I won't blame anybody on that or misunderstanding the mechanisms of Evolution though, for apparently this is not intuitive (and what students are taught in middle/high school i really poor).

Again, how and why.

Oh no, just one. If an intelligent entity created the universe, it easily explains all the impossibly improbable steps to our development along the way. Rather than everything coming from nothing, an Intelligent Creator designed it. Instead of miraculously developing over billions of years from a tadpole ‐ that Creator made us from dirt (and scientists discovered we are in fact made of dirt!).

2 things;
- No, using a miracle to explain other so called miracles is not just 1

- You are caricaturing science when it doesn't go your way and then trying to use it to support your point. Please, be consistent with other people.

Also no, no consensus on how or why life appeared in science...

Don't you ever look at your life and wonder why you are living? Why you have a heart? One of the biggest issues I have with atheism is the lack of moral responsibility that entails. If we are just blobs of evolved soup, why should we care if someone is stabbed? If truth is relative, I could live life my way, you live life yours. But no, God gave us a heart, a working mind, a conscience.

Irrelevant and caricatural. This doesn't look like simple misunderstanding anymore...

God's intervention is unnecessary as He has put the laws in place already, including the moral law written on our hearts.

You preach interventionism through Design... Again, be consistent for what you describe was exactly the point I was mentioning in my initial post : setting the initial conditions at the begining => development with no need for intervention.

God cannot lie

People can.

Love the nerding out! And yes, this is part of the many laws God has put into effect. These physical and chemical reactions you describe are simply observations of a process, not an origin, motivating force, or reason for them.

One very last time; How and Why are different questions to respond for which there is a need to be a differentiation. I clearly separated them from post 1.


-----------


To end that more properly on my side:

You are curious it seems, it's good, but it feels like the curiosity has found one intuitive answer and doesn't expand to other explanations, but rather seeks to confirm them... That said, my point was to separate clearly 2 things too:

You have metaphysical questions, not scientific ones, hence your questions "why life", "why universe", "why complexity" should stay apart from science and not summon it since it tries to answer "how life (evolves, appears eventually for example)" , "how universe/galaxies form", "how complexity". Science does NOT address purpose; hence my correction on DNA as a "code" being essentially a metaphore and not carrying hidden meaning like a crypted book (it "simply" follows biochemichal rules, which is already a lot).

Those 2 types of questions are fundamentally differents. Although I oversimplified by saying why vs how questions; it's the ultimate purpose thhat is targeted here.

My first question on "how about a God" was meant to explore Creation with a different perspective. Since you like citing great philosopher and scientists, some of them also have pushed further away the idea of God : Marcus Aurelius like many Stoicians blend it with Nature, Spinoza seems to do the same; and Laplace is essentially an hardcore determinist and, to some extent, even Newton you mentionned earlier could be used to justify an idea of God as I described (that's why I called to be cautious with that too).

Yes, we are in agreement that "how" and "why" are different questions (though answering both requires a reasonable and rational mind). We also agree on evolutionary theory and God not being mutually exclusive ‐ I was simply sharing my take on it.

I do believe however, that it is a mistake to separate science and faith, as faith is a response to evidence ‐ essential to science (one must trust in rational intelligence to even make a scientific inquiry). The Bible says what many of the pioneers of modern science believed: that nature itself is evidence of God.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" ‐ Romans 1:20

Thoughts and prayers🤗

Follower of Christ, you don't seem to realize how ridiculous your arguments are. For you, the Bible is the primary scientific reference. When I point out that a passage in the Bible is an error, it's not out of hatred for believers; it's simply to help people like you understand that they are misled by false beliefs stemming from old Stone Age legends that have no connection whatsoever with science. I am still astounded by the right Christians give themselves to have a monopoly on love, knowledge, common sense, and good morals. In reality, as soon as Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the persecuted immediately became the persecutors. Some Popes were among the worst debauchees and criminals; for centuries afterward, torture and massacres in the name of the God of love never ceased. Conversions to Christianity were rarely achieved through kind words but rather through terror. Let me return to a few scientific truths. I don't see, as you claim, how scientists can agree that the first man was made by God from earth. Since earth is often composed primarily of clay, which itself is a compound of silica and aluminum, it's strange that these two elements are so scarce in the human body when, according to you, they are the main constituents of the human body. You'll have to show me the article concerning Sox9. According to all the research I've done, it is in no way a messenger cell with unique regenerative properties. It is rather a gene located on chromosome 17 involved in the development of the sex organs and the skeleton. Therefore, it has nothing to do with organ regeneration. Furthermore, I don't see why they would be located specifically in the rib bones. The bonobo chimpanzee shares 98.79% of its genes with humans, making it our closest cousin. Our common ancestor with this primate existed between seven and ten million years ago. That a single couple can produce several billion individuals is mathematically possible, provided the necessary resources are available, but with such high levels of inbreeding, the number of individuals with disabilities must be very high; this, too, is a scientific reality. The theory of evolution is an idea that seems to horrify you, yet no scientist would now deny this principle. In fact, it would be more accurate to say "the law of evolution," since it has always been proven true. One could even argue that it is divine; it is what allowed humanity to exist, along with all other living species, of course. If God had created humankind all at once, why are these hominid fossils found at the bottom of caves or in geological strata? Why would God have created dinosaurs only to make them suddenly disappear 66 million years ago? Did he realize that this species of animal was a mistake and that they needed to be eliminated? I suspect that accepting the theory of evolution would mean you would start to doubt and lose your composure. You prefer to say silly things that reassure you. People who think the least are often the least unhappy, and nobody wants to be unhappy.

May I add that many Christians don't believe in dinosaurs either, because they are not mentioned in the bible............ Science seems to scare them

false beliefs stemming from old Stone Age legends that have no connection whatsoever with science.

It does have, somewhat, connection to science since it's human curiosity that brought many beliefs to be built; the same curiosity that, later, sciences sometimes confirm or not.

I am still astounded by the right Christians give themselves to have a monopoly on love, knowledge, common sense, and good morals.

That's your perspective and I would very much say your own faith. I have seen the same behaviour among atheists, christians, muslims... Almost any groups wants to believe they are the parangon of virtue and detain the truth.

In reality, as soon as Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire, the persecuted immediately became the persecutors. Some Popes were among the worst debauchees and criminals; for centuries afterward, torture and massacres in the name of the God of love never ceased. Conversions to Christianity were rarely achieved through kind words but rather through terror.

I don't think this part truly belongs. I might be wrong, but I highly doubt that @Follower-of-Christ is Catholic, and Protestantism became popular partly because of the rampant corruption back then... That's kind of unfair to blame another religion than Catholicism for that. There are also matter to discuss your statement on conversion through terror.

Let me return to a few scientific truths. I don't see, as you claim, how scientists can agree that the first man was made by God from earth. Since earth is often composed primarily of clay, which itself is a compound of silica and aluminum, it's strange that these two elements are so scarce in the human body when, according to you, they are the main constituents of the human body. You'll have to show me the article concerning Sox9.

Indeed, I've yet to see the confirmation of such claim in a biology paper. We don't have any consensus on the origin of life at the moment. I would take all those biblical claims metaphorically rather than literally.

The rest of your message would benefit some reframing because it's all blended and confusing... but for some sentences:

The bonobo chimpanzee shares 98.79% of its genes with humans, making it our closest cousin. Our common ancestor with this primate existed between seven and ten million years ago.

Bonobos and chimpanzees are 2 distinct species. The shared amount of DNA is something I would avoid in biology... It's broadly true, but you could also say 99% and still be correct - it depends on what you compare. You could also say that humans and bananas share 50-60% of their DNA, but overall, the structure and regulation of those genes differ quite a bit.
I see your point for the common ancestry though, and you are "nice" to expand it to 10 millions years ago from what I know.

A very nice website/tool to visualize all of those common ancestors has been developed by the University of Lyon. I would suggest everyone to give it a look and play with it a little; https://lifemap.cnrs.fr/

That a single couple can produce several billion individuals is mathematically possible, provided the necessary resources are available, but with such high levels of inbreeding, the number of individuals with disabilities must be very high;this, too, is a scientific reality

Not necessarily. Human history seems to have been through some bottlenecks and we are still surprisingly fine. There were indeed some famous cases with high inbreeding that led to some stranges features (if I remember well, there used to be a village in the US with.. blue people), but generally, life finds its path. Similarly, the recovery of wolves in Scandinavia from 2-3 individuals show how resilient reproduction can be, although fresh blood has been cleaned the rotten genes a lot too.
Again though, I would take the Adam & Eve as a nice metaphore. In biology, there seems to exist such individuals, but they didn't live together nor during the same era... and things are a bit more complicated.

The theory of evolution is an idea that seems to horrify you, yet no scientist would now deny this principle. In fact, it would be more accurate to say "the law of evolution," since it has always been proven true.

Ok, that's the part that truly interested me.
A theory in science is nothing like in everyday use. It's not an hypothesis or something one can just dismiss randomly. It is backed by observations, experiments, evidences of all sort. As for Darwinism specifically, it is,in fact, one of the most resilient theory in sciences. There are still many things to discuss about it - among the details - but the general principle is very hard to question and supported by many disciplines.

A Law, in science, is a little bit different and is more about describing patterns for example; likely with mathematical tools. For example, Mendel's law is about describing patterns in inheritance, and it is a core part of neo-darwinism.

To be short; It's not just an "idea", or an hypothesis, neither a principle; it is a very firmly and rigorously supported framework to explain how life changes over time.

Why would God have created dinosaurs only to make them suddenly disappear 66 million years ago? Did he realize that this species of animal was a mistake and that they needed to be eliminated?

I suspect that accepting the theory of evolution would mean you would start to doubt and lose your composure. You prefer to say silly things that reassure you. People who think the least are often the least unhappy, and nobody wants to be unhappy.

One has to be fair here. The theory of Evolution seems to be counter intuitive and many people, including its supporters in daily life and some biology students have misconceptions about its mechanisms. I personally find it displeasant and disheartening, but it's difficult to make it complete, exempt of misconceptions and reasonably short to learn; so naturally, some people come to question some points and find it to be "just a theory".

@Lianshen, I was surprised to be agreeing with a lot of what you said! But I will address a couple things for @anil's sake (and because I greatly enjoy discussions like these☺).

When I point out that a passage in the Bible is an error, it's not out of hatred for believers; it's simply to help people like you understand that they are misled by false beliefs stemming from old Stone Age legends that have no connection whatsoever with science.

No worries! And I honestly don't think those rebelling against God necessarily have to hate Christians ‐ it can also just as likely be disdain directed at their idea of a Creator. The Bible speaks of such a leading away:

"Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness." ‐ 2 Peter 3:16
(I recommend reading all of 2 Peter 3 for poignant prophesy)
Something to keep in mind ‐ the age of a Truth does not make it any less True♥

I don't see, as you claim, how scientists can agree that the first man was made by God from earth.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150128-big-bang-universe-supernova-astrophysics-health-space-ngbooktalk

And another with devout evolutionists explaining (which you may appreciate).

Therefore, it has nothing to do with organ regeneration. Furthermore, I don't see why they would be located specifically in the rib bones.

My brother from another mother I was talking ʙᴏɴᴇs, not organs🤣 but yes, many who deny the existence of a Creator experience the same confusion.

Here's the article since both of you guys are interested (wow, didn't catch it before, apparently they discovered this in my hometown): https://elifesciences.org/articles/40715

Fun fact: the rib is the only bone in our body that can regrow after losing up to 8 inches!

"..and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman..." ‐ Genesis 2:21-22

The above verses often get all the attention, but I love the one right after: "Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
And what do you know, our word for "woman" originates from the Old English "wifman", which literally meant "woman‐man"😇

The theory of evolution is an idea that seems to horrify you

What makes you say that? Does the thought of a Creator horrify you because you're doing things you know are morally wrong?

If God had created humankind all at once, why are these hominid fossils found at the bottom of caves or in geological strata? Why would God have created dinosaurs only to make them suddenly disappear 66 million years ago? Did he realize that this species of animal was a mistake and that they needed to be eliminated?

I have a better question: what happens when someone dies? And to that, I say, they are buried and become fossils.

Answering the next two while adding to @Lianshen's hilarious meme (bye‐bye Neander‐talls!):

"There were giants in the earth in those days....GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.....The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence....And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth." ‐ Genesis 6:4‐13

I suspect that accepting the theory of evolution would mean you would start to doubt and lose your composure.

Not really! Many Christians believe evolution supports a Creator. Would accepting Jesus Christ mean you would start to doubt?

May the love of the Savior be felt ever closer in your life. Amen.

I haven't read everything, I have only ran through some posts. I would like to stay away from trash talk, false and misunderstood acclaims about science, Bible, Christianity, atheism and everything else you blended in here (just an opinion). All I want to say that science is great and I love it but it still has it own limitations. Science can confirm that certain phenomena were reported and observed but it still can't explain how. For example, how some bodies remaint perfectly preserved decades and even centuries after death despite being buried in a regular way and how some people miraculously recovered from diseases when doctors gave them odds which were close to zero. There is also a concept called Planck time - a scale where our current physical theories are expected to break down. That's a reminder thst our models have boundaries

@Korisnik, it's alright! People have their beliefs and religions, and if we have a silly opinion, it is far better to share it than to be caught up in the echo chambers of our mind😊

"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise." ‐ Proverbs 12:15

Hellooo everybody!! 🙋‍♀️ In the forum Guessing things i asked if anybody maybe had a question for the list. And i think a really good question was asked by @Follower-of-Christ:

➡️ Do you think there is life after death? Why, or why not? Bonus critical thinking challenge: Give the reasons/evidences you trust your belief over others.

I thought maybe it is nicer to have a separate forum about the question instead that it is ONLY in the list of the other forum. ⭐🌈🌞🏆 I hope that maybe people who like to comment do so below and tell what they think and that everybody is respectful even if you dont agree or think differently about the question and the answer. Thank you very much anybody who posts what they think and believe!!! 🤗🥰🥰

I think that when you die it is not your ultimate End and you are gone forever because you cannot destroy energy you can only change its form.

so i think u still exist atleast but Idk how

Follower of Christ, I didn't say that the theory of evolution horrifies me, but that it horrifies you. Genesis and the theory of evolution are two completely contradictory things. If one is true, the other is necessarily false. Many facts have refuted Genesis, and many others have confirmed the theory of evolution. Logically, Genesis is therefore false, and with it, probably the entire Bible. A Christian who believes in the theory of evolution and in Genesis is lying to himself; you can't believe something and its opposite. That's why the theory must surely create a feeling of horror in you. When I talk about fossils, I'm not asking how these remains got to us, but rather what their discovery implies. Among the fossils, we have found skeletons of humans with characteristics not entirely identical to modern humans. Neanderthals occupied Europe and Asia from 430,000 to 40,000 years ago. According to you, it was the flood that wiped them out? Were Neanderthals also children of Adam and Eve? It's surprising that you mention this flood story, which clearly demonstrates the cruelty of your God of love. He's going to engulf all of humanity and all the animals to create a new life from the descendants of Noah and a few pairs of animals. The aftermath will show him he was wrong because, some time later, humanity will fall back into its old ways. This story doesn't hold water; you have to be mentally manipulated to believe it. What does it mean to accept Jesus Christ? I'm not going to deny that he existed historically, but his miracles and resurrection are far from credible. Calling him both God and man at the same time is even more absurd. He may have preached love between humans in the name of a God he was supposed to represent, a God who was never very loving toward his creatures. You're free to believe absurd legends if it makes you a better and happier person. For my part, I try to think based on real facts, or at least highly probable ones. I know it's not very fun.

I am also a Christian and I believe both in scientific explanation of evolution and in God and there is nothing insane in it. If we believe that God is omnipotent I don't see why it's absurd to believe He can be both a man and a God. But I think it's the other topic. I have already answered the original question in my previous post.