2 minutes ago, DirtyChai said:

It's OK brother, trust me, I know how you feel.  Just relax and play by the rules because I really don't want to see you go.   If the mods wanted you out you'd be gone, but they're fairly reasonable people that need to run a tight ship.  The fact that you're still here proves that and shows that they at least see some value in your posts.

 

Actually, the mods and I seem to have got onto level ground for the most part.  This is Valent's doing now, and it seems a very personal thing.  You show me where I broke a rule in that post, Chai.   Or any of the rules in any of my posts especially since I came back after the suspension.  If the topic includes God and I write God I'll be accused of breaking the rules.  I'm said to be preaching in that post .. can you see preaching?  As soon as I declared the KJV to be true I was a marked man on this forum.  Simple as that.  Have a good Christmas, Chai. 

29 minutes ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

It was not necessarily that one single post that triggered my mod note, it was also the few posts of yours that preceded it. The post you have quoted of yours does leave a lot to be desired, and I mentioned this in my note. Specifically, the idea that the opinion of one scientist is equivalent to what is known from science is absurd, and does you a disservice. 

You were preaching in that thread, and you will be banned if you continue to disregard moderator warnings and the forum rules. Do not pretend as though we have sought you out simply because of your beliefs in God, or that I have ever done anything towards you in anger because of your stated opinions on God when I have not. Frustration perhaps, since you continue to break the same rules time and time again, but not anger, and not for your beliefs. 

 

 

I have to believe that this is purely disingenuous on your part. You have acquired 1 suspension and 7 warning points since joining less than a month ago, most of which were not given to you by me. Are you genuinely suggesting that those are not as a result of you not being able to follow the rules here, or that I am the cause of your troubles here rather than your own behaviour?

Furthermore, I have not wanted you out. Indeed, I do not really wish for anyone to be "out". What I would like is for everyone to follow the rules and play nice; unfortunately, that is not in agreement with the reality of a publicly available, web-based discussion forum. As such, we have rules and staff to enforce those rules so that this place is able to meet its primary intention - to discuss science (and other topics surrounding science) in a rational, intelligent, and respectful manner. If you are unable to comply with the rules we have designed in order to do that, then yes, you will find yourself banned. You would not be banned purely because of me, since no one is banned at the sole discretion of one staff member. We discuss things. We have minimum quotas to meet before action is able to be taken. 

I was NOT preaching in that thread and you can NOT show me where I was.  I present SCIENCE in that thread from a very qualified scientist.

Sorry Valent, but in my opinion a lot of your reaction has to do with some kind of relationship between you and BeeCee, and that is not my opinion only, others have seen it.  Your reaction is that of a bad mother who has been offended that another person has tried to correct her wayward son, and I sincerely believe your son may be BeeCee, who I have had on ignore because of his continuous severe insulting behaviour, lewdness and disrespect for science, and who follows me around reporting what he wants you to see as offences.  Your anger when I pointed out the difference in your attitude toward BeeCee and me was clear .. and other members have said the same thing .. BeeCee gets a soft response and the others harsh.  Is BeeCee a handicapped child or something?  The other mods and I have got onto level ground and mutual respect, but not you.  The second suspension was given by you, for no good reason.  You talk about rules and discussion of science but what you are engaged in is a sadistic little sideshow OBEY THE RULES WHIP OBEY THE RULES SLASH OBEY THE RULES STAB all for your own pleasure which was passed along to a couple of your mods, with Swan in particular giving 45% of suspensions and banns out of EIGHT moderators.    However, even Swan and I seemed to get on level ground.   

I don't care if you use this message as evidence I should be banned, Valent, but I am NOT the little boy who kicked sand at you in a sandbox.  I don't go around condemning women who visit abortion clinics.  I don't criticize your right to vote.  I have three daughters and three granddaughters, I don't hate women, but you sure have a hatred on for me, and I'm a man, and I can ONLY think it's because you see me as a rightwing t.v. evangelist man who would put women into dungeons.  Well .. that's severe prejudice and bigotry on your part, and you have absolutely NO evidence to support it, and it's based on my use of scripture when the topic includes God. 

Your reactions to me have NOTHING to do with science or rules on this forum.  If they were you could provide examples and you can't, only accusation after accusation.   

Good luck with your life, and I hope you have a Merry Christmas or whatever religious or non-religious days and events you observe, if any.  

This statement of yours shows how absurd YOUR interpretation of what I write is:

The post you have quoted of yours does leave a lot to be desired, and I mentioned this in my note. Specifically, the idea that the opinion of one scientist is equivalent to what is known from science is absurd, and does you a disservice. 

Disservice?   Just look at what you wrote.  Preaching?  Get a hold of a KJV and read the Revelation.  Get some fear of God in you.  

Hypervalent threatened to ban me after I posted this in Cornel's "Can science prove God"  (Can science prove God or Afterlife.)   To me her act is a display of intense personal hatred.

     Down in the thread, responding to a request for a definition of 'love' I presented:  

I don't know if bible verses will be allowed here, but probably everyone will have seen posters and greeting cards reading, "Love is kind, patient ..."   I'll try this instead:  'Love is that which leads to life.'  

Then we must define life .. biologists will have an opinion on that, and there will be many different opinions, because there will be staunch atheist biologists who believe we return only to dust, and those who believe in the eternal life with God after death hoped for by Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and many others.

Does the science of Biology itself have anything to say about life after death?  Yes.  There is significant and unexplainable biological life after death according to Alexander Pozhitkov who was a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Germany.   https://medium.com/neodotlife/gene-expression-lives-on-on-after-death-63b204727591  

Is there any practical value to believing in life after death aside from comfort of heaven?  Yes.  "... transplant researchers are exploring whether to keep organs warm on life support instead of chilled in coolers to improve transplant outcomes. It’s not clear the extent to which RNA transcription explains any of the benefits of warm transplants."

     Does biology proving life does not end with death prove God's existence?       That is another question .. but for sure Google knows how to enlarge on a topic.   

     For posting that I got a severe warning from Hypervalent that I was preaching and would be banned it I kept it up.

     Now, Moderators, if you can tell me where I was preaching in that post please do, although I almost certainly won't be able to read your response because Valent is about to ban me.   I've tried very hard to follow rules here, and not to bring God into topics where he is not part of the subject, but to stick to the topic, which you can clearly see I was doing here.  However, Valent seems to want one thing for me only, and that is out.  I have never insulted or threatened her or any mod here, or any member.  I have never used profanity or lewdness.  I'm very, very sorry that Valent has a need to slash out in anger at the mention of God. 

    I seem unable to reach the other Administrators for help with this problem as the format on the home page no longer carries 'staff' when displayed to me.

     This then is almost certainly Goodbye.  I wish you all well, I'm glad to have been here.   

 " ... on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.”^{[40]       Einstein}   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals
himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."   

"It is only to the individual that a soul is given."     

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."                                  http://www.sfheart.com/einstein.html

"... we know how the universe behaves, but not why.   ........     Is the pursuit of that why, though not enabled by science and not aided by experiment, a worthwhile endeavor?"

It's a worthwhile endeavor to pursue curiosity.    Also .. some people believe the universe has it's own mind .. that it IS its own mind .. If we knew, for instance, that the universe punishes those who harm it, we would not blame all our misfortune on bad luck, but also on the universe recognizing the harm we do it, and we would attempt not to harm it.

I should add in case someone asks me why I'm commenting on a topic opened a decade ago, I answer because it's not a closed topic, and it's an interesting topic.

39 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, I used that earlier as a rebuttal to Beecee.

Thank you for the support, SJ.  * (Signifying the bright and morning star.)

On 10/5/2018 at 4:57 AM, jajrussel said:

In 2 Timirhy 3:16 Paul speaks about scriptures and what they are good for. What scriptures would Paul have been carrying around?

Hopefully he would have been carrying the gospels, of which Einstein said:  

"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."^[27] Einstein was then asked if he accepted the historical existence of Jesus, to which he replied, "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."^[27]

 Later in a 1943 interview Einstein added, "It is quite possible that we can do greater things than Jesus, for what is written in the Bible about him is poetically embellished."^[53]

In the last year of his life he said "If I were not a Jew I would be a Quaker."^[

        ^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein}

I have to add though that while the gospels were poetic, they were not embellished.

The value of it is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for the winner, and often for suppliers on the loser's side too.

Let's ask Einstein what he thought of war and violence:   in the last year of his life he said if he wasn't a Jew, he would be a Quaker.   Most of us know the Quakers are pacifists.

In the last year of his life he said "If I were not a Jew I would be a Quaker."^[54]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein}

Oops .. I have to ad this to enable the notification.

On 11/22/2018 at 2:31 PM, mistermack said:

You're conveniently selective with your evidence. You obviously ignore the mountains of similar but opposite evidence. 

I see that kind of reasoning as a self-induced stupidity. Not born, but acquired. Sort of deliberate blindness. 

Mountains of similar but opposite evidence?  Such as what?  If there are mountains they will be easy for you to see.  I was suspended for seven days, which is one reason I haven't been into this topic for awhile.  Before you answer, please don't mention wars and tragedies of human nature like murders .. humans are not robots programmed to do only good.  We choose to do evil.  God has given us minds with which to choose as well as with which to explore science.

On 11/22/2018 at 10:54 AM, StringJunky said:

Plenty of Einstein quotes on this subject in this Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Here's one of them:  According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."^[25]

People with nuclear buttons.  

11 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

LMAO.

Armed? 

"Honey! Go grab the hockey stick!"

 

 

 

 

 

*(This is a joke and not intended to be taken seriously in any context. I remove myself from any responsibility of proving why or why not someone may say this in Canada)

That's a good one!   Wish it were true.

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

Stalin caused death of over 4-8 millions of Ukrainians...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

If I would be moderator, you would be banned in the "blink of an eye".. as it's too obvious you're simply Russian agent..

 

Caucasians caused the deaths of 50 million native Americans and are still doing it.  Who sits in evil's chair?

On 12/4/2018 at 2:05 AM, DirtyChai said:

Hey Eise, I've never heard of that expression before, "the youngest day."  Can you please elaborate?

Also, what specific verses are you talking about wrt what Jesus said vs what Paul said?

Thanks in advance!

In 41 years with KJV I have never seen 'The youngest day' mentioned anywhere in the KJV or in an gathering whether Christian or otherwise.  Strong's Exhaustive Concordance does no include any menion of 'The youngest day.'   It's an expression I've never encountered anywhere.

16 minutes ago, studiot said:

Good, you are talking about something scientific.

Now if you would be so kind as to link your comments to the thread topic rather than sneering at the efforts of others (teachers of elementary science in this instance) we could move towards a proper discussion.

You never know, if you tried hard enough you might actually be able to support your case with evidence.

By the way, Hooke's Law was a simple something that came to mind as an example. I did imply you could choose your own.

Your scenario was not the one I had in mind, schoolboys are much more likely to measure tension or perhaps flexure, since compression experiments are much more difficult to handle and control and potentially more dangerous.

 

Consider me a cranky old guy if you will, or merely someone who wants intelligent conversation in a peaceful, civilized environment; but I'm putting you on ignore for a while for your totally inappropriate "sneering at the efforts of others" remark, and your inability to differentiate between General Philosophy and Science.

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yes indeed it is.

But like most things in this world,

It needs to be taken in context.

And the context here is that ScienceForums is fundamentally a Scientific website.

So subjects such as General Philosophy, Religion etc need to be discussed from the point of view of of their relation to /  interaction with Science and from a scientific perspective.

Obviously purely philosophical material (in this case) will be also introduced but its link to Science needs to be there.

I would venture that a 'compare and contrast' type contribution to the discussion is perfectly legitimate.

Indeed I have seen a professional barrister member here do exactly that comparing the legal and scientific interpretations of evidence and proof.

 

There is one section of the forum where any subject, including non scientific ones, may be freely discussed.

That is called the Lounge.

    

 

     I put a topic in the Lounge, it was moved to Religion.   Mods have the authority and mechanism to decide what is what according to their own view and to enforce their view.  You might bring their opinion into the discussion.  However, a mod has already, in this thread, used an example of criminal law. 

     By the way, I edited my entry, and commented on Hooke's Law.

     Another edit/comment on Hooke's Law .. that 'Law' is a clear example of where 'hard' science goes wrong at the beginning of education .. the student, unless he and less likely she, is a farm person, or a son/daughter of a person employed in mechanics or engineering, is VERY unlikely to have ANY idea of the flaws in physical materials .. even in the IDEA of a flaws in physical materials .. so their foundation of education is sealed with that flaw .. which leads to HARD and UNREASONING Consensus .. instead of a soft consensus that includes the awareness that 'hey, we may not be right, maybe the lunatic with the new evidence is NOT lunatic.'

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Can we please discuss Scientific evidence and proofs, not legal or spiritual (in the whisky sense) or any other sense.?

 

For example take a typical schoolboy experiment to 'proove' Hooke's Law where he does some measurements and draws a graph and then says

I have obtained a straight line through the origin so I have prooved Hooke's Law.

 

Has he?

The topic is:  

Difference Between Evidence and Proof

By Itoero, September 18 in General Philosophy 

          With all the great respect and appreciation due you as a person who doesn't seem to cause trouble around here, Studiot, I suggest if you want to discuss the topic purely in science you might open a topic there.

           First a definition: "Hooke's Law is a principle of physics that states that the that the force needed to extend or compress a spring by some distance is proportional to that distance."  

          As a person who has worked with mechanical springs in the physical world I can tell you that not all the material in the coil or part which springs is always of equal value, so that even in the physical world Hooke's Law is flawed.  In the cosmological world, with the distances involved, the flaw becomes of immense consideration.   That's one reason I place laws of physics in their proper place, as guidelines which may or may not work.  

Zap .. I thank you for the compliment on my logic, it scores highly, and contributes greatly to my arguments, which may be why some people find them difficult.  Logic is simplicity itself.

On 12/4/2018 at 7:08 AM, DrP said:

From memory:- According to Jesus it is 'to love the lord your god with all your heart and mind and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself'....  and then taken further ' to give all of your possessions and money to the poor, because it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven that it is for a camel to fit through the eye of the needle'.

According to Paul?...  I cannot remember if the specific question was put directly to him...  There are parts of his writing that suggest faith alone is enough... that your belief is enough to save you (as per John 3:16) through gods grace and there are writings of his that suggest works of spreading the gospel are necessary I think..   I am un aware from memory what he states are the required preparations.  There seems to be some debate around Paul's writings though as to whether you need faith alone through grace or Christian works to be performed for one to be saved. 

 

being fair he may not know if there is a difference.

You might think the holy ghost would just give him the words to say to answer the question correctly (blah, chapter blah, verses, blah to blah...'when you stand before men to witness for me do not prepare your words, rather, let the holy spirit give you the words you need as you require them...' or something like that)

From memory:- According to Jesus it is 'to love the lord your god with all your heart and mind and soul and to love your neighbour as yourself'.... 

                'For this contains all the law and the prophets.'

and then taken further ' to give all of your possessions and money to the poor, because it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven that it is for a camel to fit through the eye of the needle'.

                 This was to a specific person .. and continues, 'yet with God all things are possible.'

According to Paul?...  I cannot remember if the specific question was put directly to him...  There are parts of his writing that suggest faith alone is enough... that your belief is enough to save you (as per John 3:16) through gods grace

                 'For we are saved by grace and not by works, lest any man should boast.'    What price in money can you put on Christ on the cross.

and there are writings of his that suggest works of spreading the gospel are necessary I think..  

                  not all converted are called to be evangelists.

I am un aware from memory what he states are the required preparations.  There seems to be some debate around Paul's writings though as to whether you need faith alone through grace or Christian works to be performed for one to be saved. 

                James .. 'faith without works is dead.'

being fair he may not know if there is a difference.

You might think the holy ghost would just give him the words to say to answer the question correctly (blah, chapter blah, verses, blah to blah...'when you stand before men to witness for me do not prepare your words, rather, let the holy spirit give you the words you need as you require them...' or something like that)

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

So it's a good thing to have a word like evidence mean what it means, and another word proof mean something different, right? It's important that proof means 100% surety (proven), and evidence is support for an explanation. Precision in defining terms is a hallmark of science. Clarity is part of each step in the scientific method, especially when communicating results of experiments testing an hypothesis.  

Clarity, yes!  Won't it be wonderful when it comes!    

Where we go wrong is how serious can be the effects when we forget cases in law and science where evidence was taken as proof, then proven wrong.  Thousands of totally innocent people have been hanged or electrocuted, other have spent decades in prison.  Scientists have been considered lunatic and outcast, some into poverty, after presenting evidence proving previous scientific truths wrong.

I know example are not necessary to you, Phi, but here is a good link for the curious.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/09/27/these-scientific-theories-were-accepted-once-but-were-later-proven-wrong/#59bee3c64da2

13 hours ago, hypervalent_iodine said:

!

Moderator Note

coffeesippin, stop with the allegations of sock-puppetry. They aren't conducive to discussion, are off-topic, and are insulting to those you are accusing (not to mention flat-out wrong). Please also stop with the bizarre off topic rambling. Simply put, if you have nothing constructive to contribute to the topic of this thread, don't post.  

 

  I'll send you a message so my response won't detract from the thread.

On 12/4/2018 at 1:06 PM, Phi for All said:

You've never once given me a decent reason why you think it's a good thing to have proof and evidence mean the same thing. I've asked you several times, and I get nothing but waffle. Again, for the umpteenth time, why do you think it's better if evidence and proof mean the same thing? Can you offer any support for your stance? I've explained why I think it's better that they don't. 

To be clear, I'm not asking for instances where you think they might mean the same thing. I want to know why you feel we need to take two different concepts and make them one.

Evidence can contribute to proof.  As someone says elsewhere in this thread, and that is important enough to raise again.  But can evidence BE proof, for instance, a clear video of a person accused of a crime committing the crime?  Perhaps the accused has an identical twin?   Then the video is only evidence, not proof.  

4 hours ago, Eise said:

Doesn't suffice as an answer. I suggest you have a look e.g. at this Christian site: www.jesuswordsonly.com, especially this page.

In short:

• Jesus said you have to live according to the Jewish law, i.e. prepare by being morally good, doing good works and loving God and each other.
• Paul, on the other hand, said that people should accept Jesus as saviour, that's all. For gentiles (non-Jews) it is not necessary to keep to the Jewish laws. He saw Jesus resurrection as the first sign, that the apocalypse actually had begun.

So the Catholic Church (and I assume most protestant churches too. Or are the protestant boys circumcised? Or don't protestants eat pork?) are not Christians, but Paulians. It is not the religion that Jesus taught, but Paul. Paul's religion is a religion about Jesus, not the religion of Jesus.

I don't. Jesus said it would happen during his lifetime, or at least shortly after (as did John the Baptist). Also Paul assumed it would happen pretty soon, and he hat to quieten some churches where people were worried that some of their companions had died before God's Kingdom was established. Obviously God's Kingdom did not come in nearly 2000 years, so we can safely put this prediction aside.

The only thing I do is trying to get at peace with life as it is, including its suffering and eventually my personal death. But I do not do this because I want to be rewarded in some fantasised afterlife. (And of course you know that Jesus meant the coming of God's Kingdom was on earth, not some afterlife).

Luke 17:20-21 King James Version (KJV)

²⁰ And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

²¹ Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.  

John 18:36

   Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 

    To summarize .. the Kingdom of God is with the individual believer, and is of faith in Christ, not of any other person or thing.

Jewish Law

    'One jot or one tittle shall not fail of the law till all be fullfilled.'      On the cross in his final words Jesus said, 'It is finished.'  The law was that sin had to be cleansed by blood.  The blood was shed at Golgotha.  The lamb was slaughtered (Christ) once for all time, no need for another sacrifice, except praise and thanksgiving.  The book of Hebrews is especially helpful in understanding that great sacrifice.  (but is that excuse to sin .. "God forbid.")

Books other than the bible

     Thanks, Eise, but no thanks.  Most other books about the bible are written by man, and are imperfect.  Satan also writes books about the bible.  I began with the Holy Ghost and the Word of God KJV which the Holy Ghost revealed as perfect. I had NO confusion for many years, until I began reading other books about the bible, and that confusion left when I returned to the bible only.  

The teacher who is most necessary

John 16

5But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou? 6But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart. 7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9Of sin, because they believe not on me; 10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; 11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

There are other teachers spoken of in the NT for the NT churches, but I don't believe I have been in a church yet that is based on New Testament order, other than perhaps the Quakers in which every man can speak, so in this period of time I don't often enter them.  Jesus spoke of a great falling away, I believe we are in that time, in which few remain with the truth.  

Our own personal death

John 11:25

25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? 27She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

P.S.  Paul was strong on the salvation by grace, but his letters were also full of instructions as to how to lead good lives.  Three decades ago I was told by a then aged, and now long deceased lawyer, that they were included in his law classes as examples of logic.   You aren't alone in your supposed observation though, as James seemed to feel the need to remind Paul that 'what good is faith if a man have not works, for faith without works is dead.'   Perhaps James influenced Paul's letters.

27 minutes ago, studiot said:

I wish I could remember why I posted that.
I know I had a reason at the time.

Maybe you thought I lived nearby and we could link up?

On 11/29/2018 at 3:38 PM, iNow said:

Then, you must first define love...

Am I the only one seeing a turtles all the way down situation developing here?

I don't know if bible verses will be allowed here, but probably everyone will have seen posters and greeting cars reading, "Love is kind, patient ..."   I'll try this instead:  'Love is that which leads to life.'  

Then we must define life .. biologists will have an opinion on that, and there will be many different opinions, because there will be staunch atheist biologists who believe we return only to dust, and those who believe in the eternal life with God after death hoped for by Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, and many others.

Does the science of Biology itself have anything to say about life after death?  Yes.  There is significant and unexplainable biological life after death according to Alexander Pozhitkov who was a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Germany.   https://medium.com/neodotlife/gene-expression-lives-on-on-after-death-63b204727591  

Is there any practical value to believing in life after death aside from comfort of heaven?  Yes.  "... transplant researchers are exploring whether to keep organs warm on life support instead of chilled in coolers to improve transplant outcomes. It’s not clear the extent to which RNA transcription explains any of the benefits of warm transplants."

     Does biology proving life does not end with death prove God's existence?       That is another question .. but for sure Google knows how to enlarge on a topic.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Almost everyone involved in this discussion considers the Bible ( and certainly the Old Testament ) works of fiction.
Yet here you all are trying to find the actual truths of these fictional allegories.

Shall we discuss whether Pinocchio's nose actually grew when he told a lie, next ?

It sounds more to me like EVERYONE here is wanting to believe in the bible instead of in Pinnocchio because we know that unlike Pinnocchio's nose our time on earth is short, and what's next?  We want to know what's next?  And subconsciously we know the bible knows what's next.  So it's discussed.  If you are totally convinced the bible is fiction what are you doing here Mig?    

Most of the world will be running dry.  As the atmosphere continues to warm it will hold more water vapour.  Cold air is needed to condense the water vapour into clouds, then into rain or snow.    I'm sure someone somewhere is doing the math, but I doubt they'll announce, 'it will stop raining at midnight, and will not rain again for three years.'

On 11/22/2018 at 8:34 AM, studiot said:

Two questions for you.

1) What do you consider the purpose of the emboldened pat of your post and what do you consider the effect to be?

2) Do you play golf or know anything about it?

 

Golf would be a very enjoyable and relaxing sport for a large number of people if it were played as it's played on t.v.  Lots of time to size up and ponder.  No rush.  However, that's not the reality on non-t.v. courses.   Plus, it's played with little white balls, generally.