-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Heh evolutionists. How did reincarnation evolve?
- Thread starter Kinana
- Start date
Not all evolutionists are Buddhists and not all Buddhists are evolutionists.
I do accept evolution but not abiogenesis.
come on, talking snake, adam and eve, world flood, man walk on water, rise from the dead etc....
who is being ridiculous and outrageous here?
aren't you embarrassed to believe all these supernatural garbage at your age?
Last edited:
It is not a living thing, its a process, an alledged system where living things live by.
Evolution does not have to apply to living organism only. In the case of reincarnation, it is suopposed to be closely related to living organisms.
Trying to run away zhihua? You know now that Buddhism cannot be scientific already?
Evolution does not have to apply to living organism only. In the case of reincarnation, it is suopposed to be closely related to living organisms.
Trying to run away zhihua? You know now that Buddhism cannot be scientific already?
read the definition of evolution again
by the way, me don't believe in reincarnations and/or transmigration of spirits or souls.
science measures events that can be observed, can be repeated.
come on, talking snake, adam and eve, world flood, man walk on water, rise from the dead etc....
who is being ridiculous and outrageous here?
aren't you embarrassed to believe all these supernatural garbage at your age?
Without fail, non-believers will keep hubbing on the question: If God created the universe, then who created God? The answer is simple. If God can be created, then He couldn't be God. And if God is created, then another logical (or perhaps illogical question) that follows would be: Who then created the created God, and this chain of question will continue into eternality.
The first important question is not whether you believe the universe is created by Buddha, Allah, Lord Krishna or the God of the Bible. The first pass is: Do you believe the universe came out of nothing or was being created by a divine being and once you believe the latter, one can easily see the order of nature because God has indeed opened up his eyes to see wonderful handiwork of God himself. There is an absolute harmony of all things we see around us which we science called it the ecosystem. Even the tiniest ants play an important part in maintaining this ecosystem, but alas the whole ecosystem is now in danger of collapse because of mankind. Just look at the industrial pollution, it does not need a rocket scientist to tell us that the world cannot continue at its current state, and sadly, it is too late to reverse and restore the environment. We are now sitting on a time-bomb that will bring us to total destruction.
so question to evolutionists, if only they dared to answer and if only they have the answer: So, man is the final product that will put an end to evolution by natural selection? If that is so, isn't this an irony? And if that is the case, the 'intelligence' that is presumed to be inherent in the process of natural selection should have excluded man from the equation. And if the evolutionists disputed that there is an 'inherent' intelligence in the process of natural selection, than how could a system without any inherent intelligence, a evolutive process system of disorder and disorganise could produce this perfect order of nature? Isn't this evolution is a very fishy system that must be rejected?
Fishy, you have any answer....I bet you don't have, and like what have been observed, you will avoid all these questions.
Last edited:
read the definition of evolution again
by the way, me don't believe in reincarnations and/or transmigration of spirits or souls.
science measures events that can be observed, can be repeated.
honestly i also don't know what is he talking about. reincaration evolve????
i can confirm one thing, i suspect he needs a dictionary.
My take on evolution: Evolution is driven by craving. The womb was evolved because beings crave to be eternal, to experience life again and again. Since aging and death is inevitable, the womb was evolved as the unsatisfactory answer so that beings can be born again and again to experience life.
truth to be told, me only confused by your line of reasoning, clearly devoid of logic and rational thinking. simply amazing, a great specimen for research
Nothing really. Science doesn't support Buddhism.
And we science are always at war with stupid christians. its about time we scientists declare Jihal with fucktard like you to avenge our earlier pioneers that died due to FUCKTARD SUPERSTITIOUS BELIEF OF YOURS
Similar threads
