• 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!

if not evolution

evolved yet?

A Young Evolutionist
You, like most Atheist I know, are pretty sharp individuals. So I'm sure you can appreciate the principle of risk and probability. And I'll leave this thread with this:

If you Atheist are right and Christians wrong, we lose nothing. But if we're right and you're wrong, you lose out on eternal life.
Pascal's Wager,somethings to think about:
I think that you lose much, when praising god all the time.
What if hell isn't so bad, many forms of christianity think hell isn't so bad just not being with god well heaven is just hymns and stuff.
What if he doesn't decide based on beliefs but on how good you are?
Why will he not see through deliberate feigning of belief?
What if you chose the wrong god?
BTW what is the significants of this comment on the evolution vs. creationism thread?
 

Wessexman

Member
An alternative to evolution is the Platonist alternative. Each species begins as the idea of a species at a higher reality, it then descends through the various lower levels of being and individuates until individual examples of the species manifest themselves at our level.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
You, like most Atheist I know, are pretty sharp individuals. So I'm sure you can appreciate the principle of risk and probability. And I'll leave this thread with this:

If you Atheist are right and Christians wrong, we lose nothing. But if we're right and you're wrong, you lose out on eternal life.

What if we're both wrong?

Wow! That's so original and brilliant! I've never heard of [Pascal's wager] that before! I'm sure no one has ever debunked that [a million times right here at RF] before!

So I guess you're also Muslim, just to be on the safe side?
 

BIG D

Member
Pascal's Wager,somethings to think about:
I think that you lose much, when praising god all the time.
What if hell isn't so bad, many forms of christianity think hell isn't so bad just not being with god well heaven is just hymns and stuff.
What if he doesn't decide based on beliefs but on how good you are?
Why will he not see through deliberate feigning of belief?
What if you chose the wrong god?
BTW what is the significants of this comment on the evolution vs. creationism thread?
big deal....
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
please, if not evolution, are you saying a fully formed man/woman/baby just appeared from nothing??.like a Star Trek energizer???.what is the creationists theory..specifics please...

Surely you mean the transporter used in the Star Trek series?
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
If you Atheist are right and Christians wrong, we lose nothing. But if we're right and you're wrong, you lose out on eternal life.

Actually, Christians would lose bigger because we didn't live life to the fullest as human beings while we were alive, being led astray by a useless religion into oblivion.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
Actually, Christians would lose bigger because we didn't live life to the fullest as human beings while we were alive, being led astray by a useless religion into oblivion.

Cmon. You're smart enough to realize this is a highly subjective statement. My reality proved that I was miserable before Christianity now I've never been happier!
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Cmon. You're smart enough to realize this is a highly subjective statement. My reality proved that I was miserable before Christianity now I've never been happier!
And conversely, I was miserable as a Christian. But now by rejecting supernaturalism and embracing reason and rational thought, I am fully satisfied with life.

Funny how things work out differently for different people.;)
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
And conversely, I was miserable as a Christian. But now by rejecting supernaturalism and embracing reason and rational thought, I am fully satisfied with life.

Funny how things work out differently for different people.;)

You are absolutely right! My experience with main stream Christianity was also one of misery. But I was led to an alternative.

I hope you realize there is a great gulf between just being satisfied and pure joy and happiness. Nevertheless, I'm glad you found your niche.
 

thedope

Active Member
An alternative to evolution is the Platonist alternative. Each species begins as the idea of a species at a higher reality, it then descends through the various lower levels of being and individuates until individual examples of the species manifest themselves at our level.
This is interesting to me. I think the models for these forms are vibrational, and that there accomplishment is facilitated by aggregations of mobile genetic elements whose combination operates as a biological "crystal", a transducer. In combination their disparate forms become standardized into a coherent pulse through transduction. I see reality infused with intent, the biological notation for gravity.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Cmon. You're smart enough to realize this is a highly subjective statement. My reality proved that I was miserable before Christianity now I've never been happier!

But if God doesn't exist, you loose bigtime.

Your happiness would have been a delusion, and by dedicating yourself to a fantasy you have missed out on the opportunity to live in the truth.
 

james2ko

Well-Known Member
But if God doesn't exist, you loose bigtime.

Your happiness would have been a delusion,

Who cares.....isn't happiness in life the goal?

and by dedicating yourself to a fantasy you have missed out on the opportunity to live in the truth.

But what if I'm already living in the truth? And what's wrong with having a fantasy?
 
Last edited:

The Realist

New Member
If we had to be created. then we obviously have a creator who would have obviously been created. God would have to have a god would have to have a god and so on and so on. I think if their truly was a god and he wanted us to worship him he could do that.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
One can learn from a book only if intelligent thought and preparation have been put into the book by its author.
But we have compared the book to reality, and the book mostly lost. Why should we listen to a book that is wrong?
 

Krok

Active Member
The Bible Versus Evolution

To get the issue between creation and evolution in clear focus, we must strip away the fuzzy shroud of dogma carried over from 17th-century religion. Then let us compare, point by point, what the Bible says with what evolutionists teach and see which agrees with established facts.

First, the Bible says that God is the source of life. (Ps. 36:9) Life did not arise and cannot arise spontaneously from lifeless material. This is in complete agreement with scientific laws and experimental tests. The laws of statistics, the law of entropy, calculations from thermodynamics and kinetics all converge on the conclusion that spontaneous generation of life cannot occur. Older reports of spontaneous generation are given no credence since the experiments of Pasteur. In controlled experiments, it just does not happen. Examination of soil from the moon and chemical tests on the surface of Mars verify that life has not arisen on those planets.

Secondly, the Bible says that every living thing brings forth its own kind of offspring. (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) Neither the evidence from paleontology nor experiments in breeding or mutation have ever been shown to refute this principle. Fossil remains from ancient geologic strata of species that are still alive are identical with present-day forms. Wide diversity within a given kind may appear both in nature and in breeding experiments, but in no case does it ever pass beyond the limits to produce a new kind.

Thirdly, with respect to man the Bible discloses the time of his beginning, about 6,000 years ago. (Plants and animals have been here much longer.) With this date history and archaeology are in close agreement. Claims for older human fossils by evolutionists are subject to dispute and do not disprove the Bible record.

Truth of Creation Vindicated

What, then, is the Bible-based position in this controversy?

The fact of creation is clearly stated in the Bible. It is in harmony with scientific evidence found in astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology and biology.

The theory of evolution is directly contrary to the Bible. It has failed to give a satisfactory explanation of the facts of paleontology and biology.

The Bible does not set the time of creation of “the heavens and the earth.” The creationists’ position on this is not supported by the Bible, and their theories conflict with the facts of astronomy, physics and geology.

The Christian’s faith in the Genesis account of creation stands firm, unperturbed by current religious-scientific squabbles. That faith is based on “the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.” (Hebrews 11:1) Above all, it is backed by the testimony of Jesus Christ: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” Further, in the revelation, which God gave him, we read: “You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.”—Matthew 19:4, 5; Revelation 4:11; 1:1.
If you quote something, at least supply your sources. If you don't you are committing the offence of plagiarism and you also lie. You did a cut and past from pages 121-124 of "Reasoning from the Scriptures", a publication of Jehovah's Witnesses. Furthermore, the whole thing consists of outright lies and misinformation. Even your quote-mining efforts are a form of lying, as you very selectively quote all the parts you want to quote and leave the parts that do not agree with you. I urge you to stop doing it, as most people here are quite knowledgable and know when they are lied to. We are not as stupid as some faith-heads are and we hate liars. I also urge you to stop posting here and to get an education.
 
Last edited:

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Is evolution really scientific?

The “scientific method” is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution?
Yes.

Astronomer Robert Jastrow says: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.”—The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York, 1981), p. 19.
What on earth do an astronomers views on abiogenesis have to do with the Theory of Evolution? Congratulations on the double-fail.

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley acknowledged: “After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.”—The Immense Journey (New York, 1957), p. 199.
Because science stopped in 1957.

Can you tell us what Dr. Eiseley is referring to here? Just provide the context. Thanks.

According to New Scientist: “An increasing number of scientists, most particularly a growing number of evolutionists . . . argue that Darwinian evolutionary theory is no genuine scientific theory at all. . . . Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials.”—June 25, 1981, p. 828.

Full context please?

Physicist H. S. Lipson said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” (Italics added.)—Physics Bulletin, 1980, Vol. 31, p. 138.

A physicist? Do you even know what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is? Why are you quoting a physicist? What was he even talking about in the Physics Bulletin? Not Biology, I'm guessing.
 
Top