AJ,

I’m waiting.

How about “Trav, I’m sorry”, followed by “The evidence suggests that my accusation about you was wrong”.

Do we? Really?

>>Pericles, Good points. We agree on much.<<

The point where we diverge is on the quality of the Bible as historical evidence.

"There is historical evidence showing that the disciples believed Jesus came back to life. For example The book of Luke, the book of John and Paul’s letter to the Corinthians all mention that Jesus appeared after rising again. These documents are all independent of each other and are all early by historical standards."

All very interesting. What you don't explain, though, is why the accounts differ so widely. Which is the "historical" record?

And how can you be so sure that Jesus actually came back? Paul uses the phrase "seen of", as in "he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve" 1 Cor 15:5

But he also uses the same word - "ophthe' - to describe his own connection with Jesus. Which we know was just a vision.

He even describes an actual vision using the same word, "And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia".Acts 16:9. Not much doubt as to how Paul used "ophthe" in that sentence.

Not to rub it in, but it was the same word used to describe God's meeting with Abraham. Do you understand that to be a physical meeting that took place? Or is it a story?

You make the point that there are "independent" reports, which you consider a strength. However, when they all differ in key elements, isn't it reasonable to suggest that they were simply stories? With all the embellishments, imagination and plain straightforward invention, that stories carry?

pericules quote/''Why would you assume that I would know,""

no im presuming..*you'r honest enough with yourself
to definitivly state that you [and i]..dont know

BUT further..that any
who does claim to know..is lying

yet the *powers that be ..pretend to know
worse fool others...into thinking they do know
[but at least we two KNOW..they dont know..!]

its not as if its a complicated question..
[if you do/did know]
if YOU knew..you would say something..
that replies the question

not say
this plain absurdity

""even if I understood the question?""

you comprehend the question just fine compadre..!

for those who claim 'science proof'..
present the proof...[dna will do]

reveal your plan..[science claim's ability to REPLICATE..
so i dare them..to make just one like it..

is impossable...
cause..thats a thing..*only god can do..
[cause thats what god does..!]

your correct...""the intellects that are deployed in the search,
even while knowing that they have Buckley's chance of reaching a conclusion""

so clearly you too have egsamined..the so called 'evidences'
and also dont definitivlt declare..this is the first living thing
it 'evolved'..into that..[and here is why...[lol][cause you too need see proof]

thats all im seeking
and till you can present proof
by default..a 'living good/god'..best fits the facts

after all its not simply
making life...to live..

but then..
TO..sustain its living..into eternity
or into a normal..REPLICATING..life term

cause life
makes life..LIKE ITSELF*

and while a living mother..can make the flesh
it had a god given/life..pre being marraged with its 'other'
into the one 'being'...we are each being..[be we man or beast being]

ie a LIVING sperm..
enters..a LIVING EGG...via a living mother mechanism

a mothers work..of making mere flesh..may one day be done
but the fathers work..of sustaining EVERY/life..its living..is eternal

name name..sss
give facts..

present the truth
as it is able to be..proven to be

or

just go easy..on good/god

and none of you..can do it any better
than god allready done it

so get humble
thank god

if thats
"""an emotional,
not a rational reaction""

THEN GIVE ME FACTS...!

i note that wn has gone silent
he couldnt validate his beliefs

im not asking you to
just*..give me your facts..
then lets see who really is rational
or reacting...

present your ":tons of re-search"..
but present it..
*re the question

[who gives a toss..
""on why humans are prone to religious belief,""
wether it be belief in an alternate ..*'science/theory'..
or in god

*BOTH
WITHOUT FACTS
*ARE BELIEFS...!

""despite the lack of evidence""
that you for one are un*able..LOL..to present

thus you got faith...*too
faith..in*..science
NOT in/FACT..!

who is deluding who?

where the value
in claiming to have facts

but not have even a single name/reason/proof
to underpin this..[lol]..fact*

your not delivering 'value'..*

even your claim that dreams cant be communicating with spirit
its easy to have a vivid dream, you recall

heck much of mens 'great ideas' come from dreams

and regarding..the word..
seen of...[as in seen by...]
""..Paul uses the phrase "seen of",
as in "he was seen...of [by]Cephas,
then SEEN-BY/..of the twelve" 1 Cor 15:5

think pericules..in courts they swear on the holy bible
swear upon those stories you fain to call faulse

yet even courts accept an oath
as being true

[as sworn by two good men of good standing
[fre of bond]

if you believed in facts
you would present them, for scruitany

ditto wn
that you havnt...speaks volumes

i thought much better of you
i done the research..lets get some definitive name/starting point

we can figure it all out
its likely it was a single cell
]
[but not an amoeba that needs 20 basic things to happenm TOGETHER
thus cant evolve..cause there is no 'life' to evolve..[yet]

how about algie?
or slime....name something

what name is at the root of the [lol]
tree of lie..oops sorry tree of lief?

OUG, why am I being chided when I have already answered your gripe? My silence may just speak volumes about my having a life aside from OLO.

In my post was the last sentence too subtle? "Trust this is helpful… I'll get back to you about first life, eventually, since the science is still evolving."

Should I have said: why don't we just call it first-life until science comes up with a name? Chaotic left-handed protein folding? Don't know, might be, let's investigate, what did we learn? Something else, perhaps?

You criticise science for not having answers you want, when the purpose of science is based on exactly this point – humans don't know all the answers. Science *is* pursuing *unknowns*.

Science is the process of trying to find out about the things we don't know, but can observe and study. Knowledge is what we obtain from this process. Awe is the emotion we get each time such observation, study and knowledge explains more of this numinous universe, whilst simultaneously raising new questions to answer.

The quote I cited I'd hoped would inform you about a clear way of thinking of the 'tree of life'. You tell me "thats clever spin wn
but think of it as more like this
a fruit fly came from something else
thus could only come..*from the 'somethingelse' lineage"… No, the fruit fly came from its parents and those from their parents and so on, ad infinitum, almost.

You are not identical to your parents, but you resemble them in many ways. Their parents looked a little less like you than your parents. Your great-great-great grandparents resemble you even less closely, they are more different. What did your forebears 2 million generations ago look like?

cont:

Would it help if we got rid of the word evolution and replaced it with emergence?

This way you can think of the branches of the tree of life emerging from the trunk – and if you look closely enough at the beginning of each branch, there is an area not really branch and not really trunk. That's why the answer to your question "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is: the un-chicken.

The science-minded pedant though, would answer; "The un-chicken, given enough time."

Thank you for telling me that even god wearies of all this negativity… It can be comforting to not be the only one.

Oh, and a salute to the clever double pun with "oops sorry tree of lief?" Intentional?