The Miracle of Water.

[ecco]

I know God exists because he has personally guided me for most of my adult life.

God guided you? Was it God who first told you about the Golden Plates? Was it God who told you when it was time to pray?

If you carefully analyze your life, you will find that is was people who guided you, probably long before you became an adult.

 

[ecco]

So many people have had their expectations fed by a corrupt religious system and it has inevitably led to disappointment.....people then assumed that he doesn't exist. Did you ever think that maybe you were looking for the wrong god?

Every religious person is firmly convinced their version of God is the correct one.
Every religious person is firmly convinced their religion is the correct one.

Many people have left JW feeling it was "a corrupt religious system (that) has inevitably led to disappointment".

 

[ecco]

Nope...never have.

My post was directed to HockeyCowboy.

Nevertheless, are JWs polytheists or is Jesus not considered God?

 

[ecco]

If I am wrong, what have I got to lose....if you are wrong, what does that mean for you?

You will burn in Hindu Hell for believing in a false God.
I will be spared because Shiva accepts rational disbelief.

 

[Deeje]

Perhaps you should consider this advice yourself. Religious people aren't interested in reality.



Religion adds nothing. Science has provided us with our only useful knowledge of reality.



No, just you.



But the rational skeptic isn't interested in doing that. We leave that to the religious and to the psychotic.



Then you don't understand what incredulity is. The theory of evolution is correct. You're the one that cannot believe that.



No you don't. Nobody does.



You are immune to evidence. You demonstrate that repeatedly. And education. Have you learned the difference between a species and a family yet? Can we assume not?



Yes, I found Christianity to be unsatisfying.



We have answers. You cannot hear them because you aren't interested in them.

You, on the other hand, have no answers, just your incredulity and unsupported beliefs that can't be used for anything even if they were correct.

You declined to answer my question about why we would trade a useful idea for a useless one. I assume that I know why you chose to run from that. If you have to ignore questions, it means you have no good answer for them.

I'll repeat the comment since it appears that you are hoping that it will just go away if you do :

What motivation would any of us have to abandon a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition for an idea like creationism that can do none of that, especially if you consider them both faith-based? Seriously - why would I trade this idea for one that can't be used for anything if as you say you have no more evidence for your belief than the scientists do?

As I said IANS......We are all entitled to create our own reality based on what we want to believe (for whatever reason).....that's because we all have free will. Humans have a spiritual need that is innate....it will be filled with whatever we put into that compartment of our human nature.

If you have filled that compartment with science and need nothing more.....then go in peace and enjoy what is left of your life. You already believe there will be nothing more....so God will not be withholding anything from you that you did not ask for or expect. That seems fair to me.

 

[Deeje]

My post was directed to HockeyCowboy.

Nevertheless, are JWs polytheists or is Jesus not considered God?

Jesus is the son of God. There is only one God and he has only one name....it isn't Jesus.

 

[Deeje]

You will burn in Hindu Hell for believing in a false God.
I will be spared because Shiva accepts rational disbelief.

All the best then.... We can all choose what to worship, be it science, gods, sport, materialism, or even our own belly.....but we then choose our own destiny.

Isn't choice a wonderful thing?

 

[Deeje]

God guided you? Was it God who first told you about the Golden Plates? Was it God who told you when it was time to pray?

Golden plates? Are you confusing us with LDS? We don't have anything like that. We have no prophets either. We just live by the Bible.

The right time to pray is determined by your relationship with the recipient. If you are on a friend to friend basis, it might be as natural as an ongoing conversation. I talk to God all day about a lot of things, just as I would confide in a close friend.

OTOH if God is some distant judgemental despot in the sky, rather than a close friend, then communication is going to be stunted, forced and phony.

If you carefully analyze your life, you will find that is was people who guided you, probably long before you became an adult.

Like your good self, we are all influenced as children by those around us...our parents, siblings, relatives, school teachers, peers etc.
Once we reach adulthood however, we have the ability to either validate or invalidate what was taught to us. So no one is a victim of childhood indoctrination who doesn't want to be. I am not any more of a victim than you are. I make my own choices for my own reasons....just like you.

 

[Bear Wild]

Now that is a strange assumption....I have read the research, but perhaps without the lens that most evolutionists use when reading the same material.
You assume that because I have read the articles that I must be swept away by the suggestions.....well, I'm not. I actually find them quite comical at times.



Uneducated commentary?.....LOL....you mean unindoctrinated commentary, don't you?

Let me give you an example of the kinds of things that are fed to young students of science....

"Natural selection

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:

1. There is variation in traits.
   For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

1. There is differential reproduction.
   Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

1. There is heredity.
   The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

1. End result:
   The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.

If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that."

So at the end of the day...what do we end up with? Beetles......just beetles. They might be different colors but they have not changed into anything other than a beetle...so what are we proving? That adaptation can make things change shape and color without changing their "kind".

Let's continue......


"Natural selection at work

Scientists have worked out many examples of natural selection, one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.

Any coffee table book about natural history will overwhelm you with full-page glossies depicting amazing adaptations produced by natural selection, such as the examples below.

Orchids fool wasps into "mating" with them.

Katydids have camouflage to look like leaves.

Non-poisonous king snakes mimic poisonous coral snakes.

The male blue-footed booby, shown to the right, exaggerates his foot movements to attract a mate."

So what do we see here? Mindless Orchids just decided to decorate the cusp of their flowers to resemble a female wasp, complete with the right pheromone, just to attract a pollinator? Undirected chance did that?

The katydids made themselves so closely the leaves upon which they lived that you couldn't tell them apart? How clever of the katydid to think of camouflage as a way to survive.

The king snake realized that dressing up as a poisonous snake would also be a good idea.....and the blue footed boobies must have been influenced by Elvis to put on their blue suede shoes....? Are you getting a sense of what I am seeing as opposed to someone indoctrinated by science?

"In some cases, we can directly observe natural selection. Very convincing data show that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands has tracked weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.

In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented."

Natural selection at work

As previously mentioned, the entire series in this online teaching tool shows that natural selection creates variety within a species.

The finches on the Galapagos Islands were not evolving into anything but new varieties of finches. The peppered moths were turning into....peppered moths of a different color. That is what was observed and documented.

What is the data "convincing" people about? Nothing more than what the scientists are suggesting to their intended audience. No facts, just suggestions that anyone can see don't really add up.
Adaptation is a far cry from macro-evolution.



You need more.....?

How about that whale evolution?


"The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

Hang on....did you read that? "hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know."

"Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial."

Read that all again and tell me what its saying. They say these things without a single reference to any proof and expect young minds to just accept it all as gospel (pardon the pun).

"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

Skeletons of two early whales.

I can see the resemblance....can't you? An ear bone that strongly resembles those of a whale??? That's all the evidence you need?

What a load of old cods.....

1. Variation - So I will assume you at least understand something about variation since humans do show variations of genetic traits. I hope you understand that this is due to the genetic code made up of DNA for most organisms thus this fact I believe you can agree on.

2. Your understanding of natural selection seems a bit elementary so we can start here.
Because there is genetic variation giving different phenotypes with different characteristics such as coloration the next important information to understand that the environment is not uniform. In your simple example there was no variation in the environment. Now include an area predominantly green in which the green beetles blend in and an area that is brown we would find a different result ending up with two different populations rather than one. Makes sense? Create a barrier between these beetles so they cannot interbreed and increase the complexity of the two environments such as temperature, food sources, water availability and as many other variations as you want to add with different areas having different predators and variations of the environment then your simple example becomes more complex and realistic. Does that make sense?

 

[Bear Wild]

Now that is a strange assumption....I have read the research, but perhaps without the lens that most evolutionists use when reading the same material.
You assume that because I have read the articles that I must be swept away by the suggestions.....well, I'm not. I actually find them quite comical at times.



Uneducated commentary?.....LOL....you mean unindoctrinated commentary, don't you?

Let me give you an example of the kinds of things that are fed to young students of science....

"Natural selection

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

Darwin's grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood. To find out how it works, imagine a population of beetles:

1. There is variation in traits.
   For example, some beetles are green and some are brown.

1. There is differential reproduction.
   Since the environment can't support unlimited population growth, not all individuals get to reproduce to their full potential. In this example, green beetles tend to get eaten by birds and survive to reproduce less often than brown beetles do.

1. There is heredity.
   The surviving brown beetles have brown baby beetles because this trait has a genetic basis.

1. End result:
   The more advantageous trait, brown coloration, which allows the beetle to have more offspring, becomes more common in the population. If this process continues, eventually, all individuals in the population will be brown.

If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that."

So at the end of the day...what do we end up with? Beetles......just beetles. They might be different colors but they have not changed into anything other than a beetle...so what are we proving? That adaptation can make things change shape and color without changing their "kind".

Let's continue......


"Natural selection at work

Scientists have worked out many examples of natural selection, one of the basic mechanisms of evolution.

Any coffee table book about natural history will overwhelm you with full-page glossies depicting amazing adaptations produced by natural selection, such as the examples below.

Orchids fool wasps into "mating" with them.

Katydids have camouflage to look like leaves.

Non-poisonous king snakes mimic poisonous coral snakes.

The male blue-footed booby, shown to the right, exaggerates his foot movements to attract a mate."

So what do we see here? Mindless Orchids just decided to decorate the cusp of their flowers to resemble a female wasp, complete with the right pheromone, just to attract a pollinator? Undirected chance did that?

The katydids made themselves so closely the leaves upon which they lived that you couldn't tell them apart? How clever of the katydid to think of camouflage as a way to survive.

The king snake realized that dressing up as a poisonous snake would also be a good idea.....and the blue footed boobies must have been influenced by Elvis to put on their blue suede shoes....? Are you getting a sense of what I am seeing as opposed to someone indoctrinated by science?

"In some cases, we can directly observe natural selection. Very convincing data show that the shape of finches' beaks on the Galapagos Islands has tracked weather patterns: after droughts, the finch population has deeper, stronger beaks that let them eat tougher seeds.

In other cases, human activity has led to environmental changes that have caused populations to evolve through natural selection. A striking example is that of the population of dark moths in the 19th century in England, which rose and fell in parallel to industrial pollution. These changes can often be observed and documented."

Natural selection at work

As previously mentioned, the entire series in this online teaching tool shows that natural selection creates variety within a species.

The finches on the Galapagos Islands were not evolving into anything but new varieties of finches. The peppered moths were turning into....peppered moths of a different color. That is what was observed and documented.

What is the data "convincing" people about? Nothing more than what the scientists are suggesting to their intended audience. No facts, just suggestions that anyone can see don't really add up.
Adaptation is a far cry from macro-evolution.



You need more.....?

How about that whale evolution?


"The evolution of whales

The first thing to notice on this evogram is that hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know. That's why each of them gets its own branch on the family tree."

Hang on....did you read that? "hippos are the closest living relatives of whales, but they are not the ancestors of whales. In fact, none of the individual animals on the evogram is the direct ancestor of any other, as far as we know."

"Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial."

Read that all again and tell me what its saying. They say these things without a single reference to any proof and expect young minds to just accept it all as gospel (pardon the pun).

"These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorous teeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives."

Skeletons of two early whales.

I can see the resemblance....can't you? An ear bone that strongly resembles those of a whale??? That's all the evidence you need?

What a load of old cods.....

As for whale evolution you have already shown some of the steps in change with those diagram no longer surviving secondary to natural selection. Interestingly occasionally some dolphins and whales can actually residual hind limbs. Rare but seen. Considering the rarity for fossilization to occur what you show is rather amazing evidence. Natural selection slowly changed the form to be more and more efficient in a water environment. If you ever see a whale up close you can see the amazing dynamics that evolution creates.

 

[Skreeper]

Ah...another atheist with no answers.....the queue of those with nothing but empty rhetoric is growing....how magnificent!!!

I read enough of your posts. I won't waste my time giving you even more evidence than you've already recieved by others since that would be like trying to explain to a blind person what color is.

If I am wrong, what have I got to lose....if you are wrong, what does that mean for you? If you don't want what God is offering, then he will never force you to live the life that he offers to those who promote him as earth's rightful Creator....is that OK? Of course it is.

You might be following the wrong religion so you have the same to lose as me.

Maybe you enjoy living in a celestial dictatorship but I don't swing that way.

 

[Skreeper]

We are all entitled to create our own reality based on what we want to believe (for whatever reason).....that's because we all have free will.

That's what the schizophrenic in the mental institution is telling everyone as well.

So many people have had their expectations fed by a corrupt religious system and it has inevitably led to disappointment.....

You are a member of one of the most corrupt cults in history next to scientology.
I love how you can't see the irony in your statement.

 

[Deeje]

1. Variation - So I will assume you at least understand something about variation since humans do show variations of genetic traits. I hope you understand that this is due to the genetic code made up of DNA for most organisms thus this fact I believe you can agree on.

Yes I do understand variation....the light coloured Peppered Moths became darker when the trees became darkened by the residue of coal fires. But once the pollution problem was fixed, the moths returned to their original colour. That is adaptation. Right? No problem with that.

2. Your understanding of natural selection seems a bit elementary so we can start here.
Because there is genetic variation giving different phenotypes with different characteristics such as coloration the next important information to understand that the environment is not uniform. In your simple example there was no variation in the environment.

I was quoting Berkeley University's Evolution 101 for students. It wasn't my example. I like the simple manner of their presentation because they can't hide behind any jargon. Stripped of their dazzing scientific language, the real truth emerges in all its glorious simplicity.

Now include an area predominantly green in which the green beetles blend in and an area that is brown we would find a different result ending up with two different populations rather than one. Makes sense? Create a barrier between these beetles so they cannot interbreed and increase the complexity of the two environments such as temperature, food sources, water availability and as many other variations as you want to add with different areas having different predators and variations of the environment then your simple example becomes more complex and realistic. Does that make sense?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that beetles will continue to be beetles no matter how many barriers you place between them, or how many miles separate them. They may become unable to interbreed because of the minor changes in their appearance making them unattractive to each other, either physically or in behavior failing to trigger mating behavior. But I fail to see how the process goes so far beyond what science can prove. Where do we see the beetles becoming anything other than beetles?

If you want to use Darwin's finches as an example, you can see that they remained in the finch family. Variety was produced within their taxonomy...but nowhere do we see them becoming some other kind of creature......not even some other kind of bird.

All creatures have the ability to adapt to changing environments, but no scientist has ever observed them becoming something outside of their taxonomy....ever. To say that it is even possible flies in the face of all the evidence. Science suggests that it is possible but that is all it can do. Does that make sense?

 

[Deeje]

As for whale evolution you have already shown some of the steps in change with those diagram no longer surviving secondary to natural selection. Interestingly occasionally some dolphins and whales can actually residual hind limbs. Rare but seen. Considering the rarity for fossilization to occur what you show is rather amazing evidence. Natural selection slowly changed the form to be more and more efficient in a water environment. If you ever see a whale up close you can see the amazing dynamics that evolution creates.

You did see that the there was no relationship established in any of the creatures supposedly forming the "evolutionary chain" from Pakicetus to whales.
It was a suggestion based on nothing but a similar earbone. The whole chain is a suggestion.....because no relationship has ever been established beyond the diagrams provided by science, it is accepted on faith, not on substantive evidence.

If you have a bunch of links but nothing to join them, you don't have a chain. The missing links have never been found, because I don't believe that they exist. You do understand how many missing links would be required to prove what science is assuming "might have" happened? To me, it's a more ridiculous scenario to suggest that all that happened by chance mutations and natural selection than it takes to believe in an Intelligent Designer who planned and executed the whole thing deliberately.

Thank you for the science lessons, I know you mean well, but you have done nothing to increase my confidence in science's ability to prove what they suggest, no matter how much time you throw at it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I told you before, I used to be a Christian. Went to church, Bible camp, youth group, all of it.

You wouldn't be trying to evade the point, would you? You're the one claiming to be using the "hypothesis method" here.You tell me how many instances of tithing are statistically significant to your findings. Along with all the other things you listed. Maybe you could answer my other questions as well.

Why is asking a good follow-up evasive?

1) God says to test Him via tithing
2) I've done so, hundreds of times
3) Something that occurs hundreds of times is statistically significant
4) You claim to have tested, when I ask if you've performed specific Bible tests that God literally says, "Test me in this way" you are evasive

 

[Skreeper]

Why is asking a good follow-up evasive?

1) God says to test Him via tithing
2) I've done so, hundreds of times
3) Something that occurs hundreds of times is statistically significant
4) You claim to have tested, when I ask if you've performed specific Bible tests that God literally says, "Test me in this way" you are evasive

So wasting money is a way to recieve revelation from God? Is there a way where I don't have to give my money to corrupt religious organisations?

 

[ecco]

All the best then.... We can all choose what to worship, be it science, gods, sport, materialism, or even our own belly.....but we then choose our own destiny.

Isn't choice a wonderful thing?

I don't know of anyone who worships science or sport or materialism. Do you? Or are you just misusing the word "worship" to try to promote your agenda?



ETA: I have learned that people who smile unnecessarily are people trying to cover their embarrassment over the fact that they know they are lying. Is that why you have a need to insert "smilies" on so many of your posts?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have no idea.....I know God exists because he has personally guided me for most of my adult life. I know "who" he is but as for "what" he is....I have no answer, nor would I probably be able to comprehend it if he gave me an explanation. I don't need to know "what" God is apart from what he tells us in the instruction manual he gave us. He is a spirit....that is an intangible lifeform who has enormous power that can be directed wherever he deems it necessary. Can scientists test for the existence of such a being? Does that mean that he can't exist?

So you think it's super important to know where the universe came from and who makes snowflakes and pretty frogs and everything else, but you're just completely incurious about where the God you worship came from? But you expect definitive, absolute answers from science about where gravity and everything single other little thing comes from before you'll even begin to think about whether evolution is true or not.

If this deity you posit the existence of interacts with the universe it supposedly created, then your deity should be detectable and measurable in some way.

I have had no such thing. All that has been presented is more of the same guesswork and assumption about what "might have" or "could have" happened all those millions of years ago. That is scientific fantasy. To take adaptation and expands it way beyond testable limits to suggest what can never be proven. That shows us that evolutionary science cannot support its own arguments. It "believes" its own conclusions because it wants to.....that puts it on the same footing as those who believe in Intelligent Design. We can't prove the existence of our Creator, but we can look at the same evidence as you do and see evidence for him.

You certainly have. I have seen it with my own eyes, over and over again. There are several posters here who will attest to the fact that they've provided you with mountains of evidence on anything and everything associated with evolution, and in response to every evolutionary question you have asked.

What you're saying here simply isn't true.

On this thread, like all the others, the evolutionists do not disappoint when pressed to present evidence that does not rely on suggestion and assumption being accepted as fact. They simply do not have any facts. There are no facts in science....right?

There are many, many facts in science.

If in your experience, you looked for God in the past and didn't find him, have you thought that maybe it had more to do with your expectations or what you were taught, rather than with God himself?

Nope. If God wants me to know he's there, then "he" should let me know. He should know what kind of evidence I would require to believe. Otherwise, all I can conclude is that he doesn't want me to know he's there or that he isn't actually there.

Did he simply not fulfill those expectations? Were they realistic? Were you taught correctly about what to expect from him? Do you know?

I guess he shouldn't have created brains the way they are if he didn't want us to be curious and skeptical.

I require evidence in order to believe something. That's how my brain works. I guess God shouldn't have made it that way if he wanted us all to just have blind faith.

So many people have had their expectations fed by a corrupt religious system and it has inevitably led to disappointment.....people then assumed that he doesn't exist. Did you ever think that maybe you were looking for the wrong god?

If I had found any God, I'd be a believer.

If God can't be bothered to provide evidence of "his" existence, I see no reason to believe he exists and no reason to want him to exist. This is a God who just can't be bothered. Well then, I can't be bothered either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What is reality? It's a personal perception.....your reality is not my reality. Please don't assume that your reality is the only valid one.
You assume that it is. Assumptions can be dead wrong.

Science knows very little in the big scheme of things, but you'd think they knew everything by the way they arrogantly throw their weight around. To me they are like the Emperor parading his new clothes. He is absolutely naked but he doesn't know it. The fantasy can only be broken by the truth.

You have "beliefs" based on what science suggests with regard to the 'origin of species'; there is absolutely no proof for what you believe, whether you admit it or not. You have your 'religion' and 'gods' and 'scripture', just as I do. You don't see it for obvious reasons.

We are all entitled to create our own reality based on what we want to believe (for whatever reason).....that's because we all have free will. Humans have a spiritual need that is innate....it will be filled with whatever we put into that compartment of our human nature.

Yet you claim to know even more than science does. On what basis? You follow some ancient book? Pfft. I'll take scientific evidence over that any day of the week. At least it's demonstrable, testable and useful.

You know what's arrogant? Claiming you know more than anybody else about things nobody actually knows anything about. Claiming that the God that you personally find palatable is up there creating all of this just for you, so that you personally can find beauty in a tree frog and live eternally in paradise somewhere.

Arrogant is not, hypothesizing, observing, measuring and testing; tentatively drawing conclusions from the available evidence, and re-thinking said conclusions when new evidence comes in; publishing one's findings in journals so that their peers may criticize it, call out any errors and attempt to replicate the findings; admitting that we don't know everything about everything and that there is still much information to discover about the world we find ourselves in and continuing to look for those answers in a methodological manner.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ah...another atheist with no answers.....the queue of those with nothing but empty rhetoric is growing....how magnificent!!!

'Luckily' we don't throw away a secure future based on the unsubstantiated tripe dished up by godless evolution.

If I am wrong, what have I got to lose....if you are wrong, what does that mean for you? If you don't want what God is offering, then he will never force you to live the life that he offers to those who promote him as earth's rightful Creator....is that OK? Of course it is.

Just as much as anybody else. You could easily be just as "wrong" as anybody else. Maybe Allah is up there. Or Zeus. Or Mithra. Or any of the other thousands of gods humans have believed in throughout our history.
There are way more than 2 options.