Crosswords1 min ago
Proof Of God?
134 Answers
With so many scientists believeing in God, and proofs such as intelligent design established, and the valid criticisms of evolution not being successfully challenged, would you now at least consider the possibility of a universe created by a conscious mind, God?
So many great highly intelligent people never questioned the existence of God, so does that not give you pause for thought?
J.C. Ryle, Tozer, Spurgeon, Hudson Taylor, Isaac Newton, to name just a tiny few?
If you embrace atheism, ask yourself, do you know more than these people?
And what do you know?
So many great highly intelligent people never questioned the existence of God, so does that not give you pause for thought?
J.C. Ryle, Tozer, Spurgeon, Hudson Taylor, Isaac Newton, to name just a tiny few?
If you embrace atheism, ask yourself, do you know more than these people?
And what do you know?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Theland//Evolution? Not one single recorded case of it. //
The evidence of it is everywhere. The Theory does not project that we would expect to see the evolution of one species into another within a single observers lifetime or even within the written history of science.
In fact if a single transmogrification were to be observed it would be the greatest challenge to The Theory of Evolution ever encountered.
Moreover, it is the lack of evidence for the appearance of fully formed creatures without a progression of smaller changes that is the greatest weakness of Creationism. Creation predicts that new complex creatures simply appeared from nothing and it has never been observed either directly or in the fossil record.
The evidence of it is everywhere. The Theory does not project that we would expect to see the evolution of one species into another within a single observers lifetime or even within the written history of science.
In fact if a single transmogrification were to be observed it would be the greatest challenge to The Theory of Evolution ever encountered.
Moreover, it is the lack of evidence for the appearance of fully formed creatures without a progression of smaller changes that is the greatest weakness of Creationism. Creation predicts that new complex creatures simply appeared from nothing and it has never been observed either directly or in the fossil record.
^^^Don't forget though, the argument for fossils from our religious friends is that they were placed there by god to test our faith.
I am continually staggered how seemingly normal intelligent people believe in god when there is not a single jot of evidence, and yet not only do they expect us to take their word for it, they also expect us to respect it.
There is as much proof in the existence of god as there is in the existence of leprachauns, and yet if I swore blind faith in their existence and worshipped them, I'd quite rightly be ridiculed and have my sanity questioned.
I have no doubt that the Thelands of the world will scoff at the beliefs of scientologists, and as much as their beliefs are mental, are they any more mental than the belief in god? I think not. The only difference is one of time. The nuttery from scientologists is only 60 or so years old, whereas the nuttery from Christians is a couple of thousand years old and the nuttery from Muslims is about 1600 years old.
I am continually staggered how seemingly normal intelligent people believe in god when there is not a single jot of evidence, and yet not only do they expect us to take their word for it, they also expect us to respect it.
There is as much proof in the existence of god as there is in the existence of leprachauns, and yet if I swore blind faith in their existence and worshipped them, I'd quite rightly be ridiculed and have my sanity questioned.
I have no doubt that the Thelands of the world will scoff at the beliefs of scientologists, and as much as their beliefs are mental, are they any more mental than the belief in god? I think not. The only difference is one of time. The nuttery from scientologists is only 60 or so years old, whereas the nuttery from Christians is a couple of thousand years old and the nuttery from Muslims is about 1600 years old.
Study the prophecies about Israel in the Bible, then compare them to the history of Israel, and the news every week. Globalism? One world religion? One world economic system? Israel surrounded by enemies?
Last year there were twenty United Nations Resolutions against Israel.
There were three for all countries in the rest of the world.
Is the persecution of the Jews real, just as in prophecy?
Study the facts folks!
Last year there were twenty United Nations Resolutions against Israel.
There were three for all countries in the rest of the world.
Is the persecution of the Jews real, just as in prophecy?
Study the facts folks!
Theland - I totally refute your claim in your original post that
proofs of intelligent design are established.
It is disreputable of you to claim this, and again just demonstrates your insatiable desire to live in the past and deny all the achievements of modern science.
Thankfully people like you are walking rapidly down an evolutionary dead-end.
proofs of intelligent design are established.
It is disreputable of you to claim this, and again just demonstrates your insatiable desire to live in the past and deny all the achievements of modern science.
Thankfully people like you are walking rapidly down an evolutionary dead-end.
Khandro //Religion doesn't even attempt to "explain" anything, nor should it. It offers a guideline for those who wish, of how to conduct themselves and how lead their lives.//
Religion is even worse at moral guidance than it is at explaining nature. Not surprising since the Abrahamic religions all promote the bigotry of ancient, arrogant, ignorant misogynists as unquestionable truth.
Religion is even worse at moral guidance than it is at explaining nature. Not surprising since the Abrahamic religions all promote the bigotry of ancient, arrogant, ignorant misogynists as unquestionable truth.
"Evolution? Not one single recorded case of it. Microbes to microbes, finches to finches, no cross speciation. But the propaganda is winning isn't it?"
Your own reference to finches and microbes deny your previous claim of no recorded case. To develop from one species to two needs particular curcumstances that isn't going to happen over a mere lifetime or even a few generations. It requires a species to split into two groups unable or unwilling to cross breed with each orther until each has developed sufficient different characteristics that they have become clearly different creatures. It has nothing to do with propaganda, it is the logical conclusion arrived at when the proved system of evolution and change of a single species is applied to isolated communities of that species. They both change but develop different characteristics due to random change, and an evironment that ensures only changes beneficial to that group's individual survival stick around long enough to be passed on. It takes much faith to deny the obvious conclusion without evidence it could be wrong.
Your own reference to finches and microbes deny your previous claim of no recorded case. To develop from one species to two needs particular curcumstances that isn't going to happen over a mere lifetime or even a few generations. It requires a species to split into two groups unable or unwilling to cross breed with each orther until each has developed sufficient different characteristics that they have become clearly different creatures. It has nothing to do with propaganda, it is the logical conclusion arrived at when the proved system of evolution and change of a single species is applied to isolated communities of that species. They both change but develop different characteristics due to random change, and an evironment that ensures only changes beneficial to that group's individual survival stick around long enough to be passed on. It takes much faith to deny the obvious conclusion without evidence it could be wrong.
