• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. sandor606

    The sick concept of Eternal hell suffering.

    I am not aware that in the NT Jesus said that hell is the place where sinners go after death or that the righteous would sit in judgement of their fellow mortals. Where these ideas come from I don't know but they are not his.
  2. sandor606

    The sick concept of Eternal hell suffering.

    Jesus did not invent hell and God is not punishing us in any way; it is rather our animal drives - dominance, territoriality, and sex - that are causing much of the suffering. Hell is what the human animal has turned the planet into: a dog-eat-dog world. Jesus taught and lived a God of truth...
  3. sandor606

    =Something Bad Jesus Did=

  4. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    This is my last post. Thank you all for the non-discussion.
  5. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    Thanks, I will study the papers.
  6. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    Thanks for the link. I did not know about the study and on the face of it it appears to be proof. However, as you know, one study does not constitute final proof; more are needed that corroborate the findings. Meanwhile,I will continue to subscribe to this view...
  7. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    To my knowledge, nothing in The Anthropic Cosmological Principle has been disproven by discoveries made after the 80's.
  8. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    I am very much on the side of Bishop Paley, you opinionated arrogance notwithstanding.
  9. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    No, I do not ignore it. I use the Cambrian Explosion because it represents an event that could not have been the result of gradual accumulation of changes. "The theory holds that, beginning some 545 million years ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period...
  10. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    When it comes to proof, Dr. Denton has much more credibility than I do, of course. Since his opinion is both revolutionary and a potential intellectual bombshell, I let him speak directly; this way I avoid becoming the target of the naysayers and have him get the heat.
  11. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    Concerning birds this is my position which is also John A. Davison's: "55,000,000 years ago the evolutionary march was marked by the sudden appearance of the first of the true birds, a small pigeonlike creature which was the ancestor of all bird life. This was the third type of flying creature...
  12. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    Autodidact, The arguments are made by scientists and they deserve the credibility. I share their views and I am reporting on them. My well-intentioned misrepresentation of one fact about myself may say something about my character, but it has nothing to do with the scientific facts presented...
  13. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    You take me for a total moron. No, I study the book, highlight it, digest the info. and think about it critically. The fact that it is written by an expert (for me a person with a Ph.D in the field) makes the info. more credible, though not infallible, of course.
  14. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    I wrote what it says on the back cover. Whatever the case, If you reject my witness there is nothing else left to say.
  15. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    Denton does not say what the origin of birds may be; what he says and provides evidence for is that they could not have descended from dinosaurs because of the uniqueness of the feather and the lung. Here, in his own words, is a summary of his opinion concerning the feather: "It is true that...
  16. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    On the inside of the back cover jacket of his "Nature's Destiny" it says that his Ph.D. is in developmental biology. Since this is from his book I assume the info. is true. I believe yours is from WIKI. At any case, when it comes to the credibility of the evidence, imo what is printed in his...
  17. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    You speak with much confidence and criticize Denton; what academic background you have that makes you such an expert? I know what Denton's is and it's impressive; I assume yours isn't, certainly not in developmental biology. Autodidact, the height of your intellectual arrogance is truly amazing...
  18. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    You speak with much confidence and criticize Denton; what academic background do you have that makes you such an expert? I know what Denton's is and it's impressive. I assume yours isn't, certainly not in developmental biology. Autodidact, your intellectual arrogance is amazing. Whatever the...
  19. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    He is an expert in developmental biology in which he had a Ph.D. from Kings College. From WIKI: Developmental biology is the study of the process by which organisms grow and develop. Modern developmental biology studies the genetic control of cell growth, differentiation and "morphogenesis,"...
  20. sandor606

    Scientific Evidence Supporting Intelligent Design

    I am familiar with the dinosaur argument. I thought I would get something else. The dynosaur hypothesis did not convince me then and does not convince me now. It also does not convince some experts such as Michael Denton. I find his argument more convincing and credible.
Top