Pascal's Wager-- for theistic evolutionists

[wblastyn]

Does God not see more truth in his words than in that of man?

What if "his words" weren't supposed to be taken literally?

Do you believe the earth is a flat circle covered with a dome with stars stuck on it? That's how the Bible describes the earth. Do you believe in fire breathing sea serpents, store houses in the sky for rain and snow, that the mustard seed is the smallest seed? All these things are in the Bible. Of course, they aren't a problem if the Bible was never supposed to have been taken as a science book.

 

[sfs]

Have you ever encountered a beneficial mutation?

Of course. Demonstrating that beneficial mutations occur is a basic undergraduate biology experiment. How could you have rejected evolution based on evidence and not know that?

The data supporting evolution is historical evidence. The biological analysis must be done on fossils, and that which is done to determine genetic differences due to evolution automatically assumes evolution to be truth.

The data I deal with have nothing to do with fossils: I'm talking about the genetics of living organisms today. They all show clear traces of evolution.

I can tell you that the universe is 6000 years old (there abouts). C is decreasing. Look up "Doubly Special Relativity", this is an addition to Einsteins theory.
Why are fossils shown to be millions of years old?
Radiometric dating methods are based upon "standard conditions", which do not exist. Decreasing C does not result in "standard conditions".

Ack. Doubly Special Relativity does nothing at all to explain away radiometric dating. The only changes in the speed of light that it postulates are tiny and are confined to extreme conditions like those in the very early universe; they have no relevance to anything that's been happening on Earth for the last few billion years. Physicists, biologists, geologists and astronomers are all convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt, and for independent reasons, that the Earth is very old. (Since you seem to be impressed by intelligence, I'll also point out that many of these people are really, really smart.) Consider the possibility that they might be right.

 

[sfs]

Does God not see more truth in his words than in that of man?

If you're convinced that you've got God's words telling you not to believe in evolution, then you'd better accept the wager -- although it's not much of a wager in that case, is it? You were asking about our reasons for rejecting it, however, not yours. And I don't have any words written by God telling me anything of the sort.

 

[Philip]

Pascal was a genius and he made a wager. Why don't you, with your infinitely smaller minds (devolution) choose to take this wager?

I am sure that Pascal would be horrified by this comment.

 

[Philip]

Do you believe in evolution (posed at those who do, obviously) because of your wonderous scientific knowledge, or because it is what the world believes?

I accept it because it is currently the best fit for the data.

I don't wish to brag here, but I have an extremely high IQ,

Congrats. Did it occur to you that some of us might as well?

and I find evolution to be highly illogical and ridiculous in all aspects, whether one takes a macro-biological approach or micro-biological. I also know, and know of many other Christians with very high IQ's who share exactly the same view.

You are aware that there are some fairly intelligent people who disagree with you, aren't you.

Not only is creation gods view,

In case you haven't noticed, the people with whom you are arguing believe in creation. We just don't believe in a literal six-day creation.

and what may potentially bring you to an eternal life,

Funny how there is no Scriptural evidence of that.

There are two kinds of evolutionists; The ignorant and the ones who just want a "way out". Theistic evolutionists seem to be both.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who use phrases like this and those who know the truth.

 

[Philip]

Have you ever encountered a beneficial mutation?

Yes.

I can gaurantee you that any geological data taken from fossils is highly inaccurate. Any geological data taken from any rock, whether it be igneous, metamorphic or sedimentary will be highly inaccurate.

Oh, well, if you can gaurantee it, it must be true.

C is decreasing. Look up "Doubly Special Relativity", this is an addition to Einsteins theory.

Umm, DSR does not indicate that c is decreasing. It suggests that photons of different energies have (slightly) different speeds. Oh, and DSR is still a hypothesis. It can explain some observations, but those same observations are equally well explained by other ideas.

 

[Philip]

Does God not see more truth in his words than in that of man?

Certainly, He does. Of course, that does not imply that He sees more truth in your interpretation of His word than in mine.

 

[short stick]

but the chance of the original mutation happening is very slight, therefore it is still a chance rather than a defined action, however you are correct in the natural selection...

 

[wblastyn]

but the chance of the original mutation happening is very slight, therefore it is still a chance rather than a defined action, however you are correct in the natural selection...

Yes, but there will always be errors in copying, the error you get is random, hence I said random mutations.

 

[Crusadar]

I'm back boys! It was a great camping trip, bugs and all but it has given me an opportunity to see God's infinite creative genious up close and personal and you know what, there was no sign of evolution anywhere to be found (which is no surprise).

What has happened here while I was gone? I see that much of this site has changed, and my posts are no more. Oh well, change is inevitable, and still the same old people and same old evolutionary nonsense remains.

 

[wblastyn]

I'm back boys! It was a great camping trip, bugs and all but it has given me an opportunity to see God's infinite creative genious up close and personal and you know what, there was no sign of evolution anywhere to be found (which is no surprise).

You might have to wait a few hundred+ years to see evolution.

What has happened here while I was gone? I see that much of this site has changed, and my posts are no more. Oh well, change is inevitable, and still the same old people and same old evolutionary nonsense remains.

Uh huh, and the same old "evolution is a lie from satan" nonsense that, unlike evolution, actually is nonsense.

 

[Crusadar]

It's just ashame you still regurgitate all that nonsense, and refuse to submit yourself to Jesus Christ as Lord of your life. You claim to know Christ, but does He know you?

 

[wblastyn]

It's just ashame you still regurgitate all that nonsense, and refuse to submit yourself to Jesus Christ as Lord of your life. You claim to know Christ, but does He know you?

It's a shame you keep spouting your unbiblical claims of "evolution sends you to hell". Of course, you're much more subtle than that, but I know that's what you're getting at.

How does evolution prevent me from submitting "to Jesus Christ as Lord of [my] life". Evolution says nothing about the existance or non-existance of Jesus, so I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Crusadar]

You honestly don't know? Or just don't want to know? If later is the case then I can't help you.

 

[The Barbarian]

Paschal's wager works both ways. Suppose orthodox Christians are right, and the literalists are wrong.

If God cares about it, then they end up burning for eternity.

Fortunately, it's not a salvation issue.

 

[wblastyn]

You honestly don't know? Or just don't want to know? If later is the case then I can't help you.

I thought we had to follow Jesus to be a Christian, I do, therefore I am a Christian. So what is the problem?

 

[Crusadar]

TheBarbarian:Paschal's wager works both ways. Suppose orthodox Christians are right, and the literalists are wrong.

If God cares about it, then they end up burning for eternity.

Fortunately, it's not a salvation issue.

But then that would mean that the Word of God is wrong and our interpretations are right - so why believe in any of it all, for is not a half truth also a lie?

You are right, it is not crucial for salvation but it is important that we believe God when He tells us something.

 

[sfs]

TheBarbarian:Paschal's wager works both ways. Suppose orthodox Christians are right, and the literalists are wrong.

If God cares about it, then they end up burning for eternity.

Fortunately, it's not a salvation issue.

But then that would mean that the Word of God is wrong and our interpretations are right - so why believe in any of it all, for is not a half truth also a lie?

Or it would mean that the Word of God was right and some guy named Crusader was wrong about what the Word of God was saying. Or it would mean that Jesus is the Word of God, that the Bible is one of the ways that we learn about the Word and that it has nothing to tell about science.

 

[Crusadar]

wblastyn: I thought we had to follow Jesus to be a Christian, I do, therefore I am a Christian. So what is the problem?


How is it that you follow Him?

 

[wblastyn]

wblastyn: I thought we had to follow Jesus to be a Christian, I do, therefore I am a Christian. So what is the problem?


How is it that you follow Him?

I accepted Jesus into my life, confessing my sins and asking for forgiveness. I try to live as He commanded to show i love Him, but I often fall, as does everyone, but i am saved by grace, so no matter how much I fall God is still with me.