The Pope believed the world was flat just like the rest of the world did until Galileo punkd his ass, too bad Galileo got F'd over because of that. O well the pope was just listening to a SCIENTIST named aristotle from way before jesus. I believe in the same GOD you guys believe in (Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru) .
sickness, I still don't understand why you are lumping in Islam with the science stuff, because the fact of the matter remains that Muslims and Christians believe in the same God.I am with you though that faith is greater than science, but science is not pointless. It helps explain a lot of things... and people use all those theories to try and make sense of certain things for themselves.
Sickness you dont know anything about Muslims, read the Quran you idiot, and you'll find your beliefs the same as ours. idiot.
If you really get deep into science, the more you know about stuff the more you will realise how much you dont know. Scientists of this nature are very religious because they know that only divine intervention could have done such things.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JustBlaze @ May 20 2006, 01:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, let's hear your theory on how this universe came into existence.</div>Just because you cant prove it false, doesnt make it true.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (LBJ @ May 23 2006, 04:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The Pope believed the world was flat just like the rest of the world did until Galileo punkd his ass, too bad Galileo got F'd over because of that. O well the pope was just listening to a SCIENTIST named aristotle from way before jesus. I believe in the same GOD you guys believe in (Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru) .</div>If what you said was true, the Pope really didnt know anything about the Bible. There is a scripture before the known sphere of the world was about, that says the earth is a sphere (it said circle, but the greek rendering is sphere)
Wait, all Muslim people, you MUST regard and respect the Bible. Why? Because it CLEARLY tells you to convert to Islam!!http://www.islamworld.net/Muhammad.in.Bible.htmlNO WAY ANY CHRISTIAN CAN ARGUE THAT. CASE CLOSED. I PERSONALLY WANT TO SEE A CHRISTIAN OR NON-MULIM MAKE A COMEBACK.
I respect Christianity. The Bible is okay, I guess. Just like to verify the necklace around my neck engraved with arabic prayer (aytul kursi) will never be taken off in vain of being muslim.
The Bible said the Messiah?/Last Prophet? (what does it mean???) would be like Moses peace by upon him. Maybe Abraham? Not sure.Well, Muhammad peace be upon him had 2 parents!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xi sickness xi @ May 23 2006, 05:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im not insulting the other beliefs,I am just saying its hilarious to believe that we were evoultionized by monkeys or apes or w/e you wanna call them,its also hilarious to think that a Big Bang created our whole universe.Other beliefs like one cell started a cycle and created everything,thats completely bogus.I am not insulting the other beliefs,its just that its funny to think that a cell,Big bang or apes Made earth what it is today.</div> You make evolution sound like some joke. We didn't come from monkyes that you see at the zoo, it was a process that took millions of years.
The big bang theory is completely false. The natural order of the universe is from order->disorder, therefore it is impossible for the big bang to have happened. And as far as evolution goes, if you show me proof, i'll believe it, but until than I'm sticking with creation (which is very credible).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sneadyboy @ May 25 2006, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The big bang theory is completely false. The natural order of the universe is from order->disorder, therefore it is impossible for the big bang to have happened. And as far as evolution goes, if you show me proof, i'll believe it, but until than I'm sticking with creation (which is very credible).</div>Proof of Evolution is all over the place... you should have learned a lot about it in school, and that right there would have been enough proof.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ May 25 2006, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Proof of Evolution is all over the place... you should have learned a lot about it in school, and that right there would have been enough proof.</div>Okay,can you explain this proof of evoultion please?<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sneadyboy @ May 25 2006, 04:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The big bang theory is completely false. The natural order of the universe is from order->disorder, therefore it is impossible for the big bang to have happened. And as far as evolution goes, if you show me proof, i'll believe it, but until than I'm sticking with creation (which is very credible).</div>I totally angree with this guy,Big Bang theory is bogus and the evolution theory is crap.How can someone believe apes mortalized us?
Is Evolution true?<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>For many years, I accepted naturalistic evolution as a given, a proven scientific fact. Even though I knew it was a theory, it seemed to make sense and explain the evidence. I participated in a field biology/ geology class in college during which a group of students spent over a month traveling around Colorado, learning the basics of scientific thought while stopping at road cut after road cut, digging fossils and seeing evolutionary evidence for ourselves.Creationists, I thought, were the ones who lacked a commitment to truth and objectivity, who ignored evidence because of prejudice or a belief system they felt a need to defend. Whether I wanted to believe in God or not was irrelevant to what was true. My commitment has always been to truth, whether I like it or not. I accepted evolution because I was unaware of the sum total of evidence and because I didn't know the questions to ask. I don't think I ever completely believed that God was just a figment of men's imagination, but I didn't argue with those who did.Almost twenty years after college, I listened to some tapes by creationists and was surprised to discover that they made more sense than I had expected. I decided to do more investigation. I read Origin of Species and dozens of books and articles on evolution and creation (view reading list and annotations). I searched out the criticisms each side had of the other and read the responses to those criticisms. My goal was to maintain an open mind and to consider all arguments without prejudice. To my surprise, I became more and more convinced that, although both sides had strong and weak arguments, natural evolution as outlined by Darwin can not account for what exists. This does not, of course, mean that the Bible is true, but it leaves the question open. According to biochemist Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box:The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in the world, without knowing anything about the designer.By the way, if any evolutionists read this and would like to open a dialogue, correct facts I may have gotten wrong, or present information that's become available since I did my study, I'd love to hear from you. I'm open to new information and committed to truth. In the course of my investigation, I tried to get my honest questions answered by evolutionists and was told not to get sidetracked by details. I should believe in evolution, I was told, because it is scientific. It reminded me of trying to get my questions about Christianity answered in high school. Then I was told I should believe the Bible because it is God's word. In both cases, no attempt was made to answer my questions. I was asked to accept prevailing thought based on authority alone.Details are important. In criminal investigations, a tiny detail that doesn't fit can lead to a whole new line of inquiry. A person committed to truth and objectivity cannot afford to ignore or brush over details that do not fit his preconceptions.Many serious scientists have always doubted the sufficiency of Darwin's theory, or have accepted it mainly because they couldn't think of a naturalistic alternative. For some quotations by famous scientists concerning the origin of life, click here. The evidence to support evolution is not overwhelming, as is often stated. I was surprised to find in my research that the same examples that were cited 30 years ago when I was in high school are still the best evolutionists have to offer: the peppered moth, sickle-cell anemia, etc. I had expected that by now there would be many more clear examples and much more "proof." Below is a summary of what convinced me that natural evolution cannot be the answer to the question of origins. Natural law. Scientists investigate the laws of nature. The very existence of law and order in the universe points to a source or lawgiver.Law of cause and effect. All current scientific evidence indicates that the universe had a beginning. Before this evidence was found, many scientists thought that the universe had existed eternally and had no beginning. According to the law of cause and effect, every effect must have a cause. Since we have an effect (the beginning of the universe and life), there must have been a cause. That cause would necessarily be outside the present realm of nature.First law of thermodynamics. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. In the current order of nature, energy is transformed from one form to another, for example from nuclear energy (sun), to light, to chemical energy (in plants), to heat (when the food is eaten and the calories are used to warm the body), to motion (walking) or sound (speaking). Electricity is an additional form of energy. Energy can never be created or destroyed. This is not a theory, it's a law. Matter is related to energy (e=mc2), so energy can sometimes be transformed into matter and vice versa, but the energy itself cannot be created or destroyed. Since we have matter and energy, and since the universe has not always been in existence, energy had to have been created at some time in the past. Today's natural laws must not have always been in operation.Second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics describes entropy, which is the natural tendency of things to progress from order to disorder. This law states that order can never arise spontaneously from chaos. In other words, the universe is "running down." In the past, there was more usable energy in the universe than there is now. The same amount of energy exists because energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it is in ever less usable form.The theory of natural evolution proposes that over millions of years, the universe and life on earth naturally proceeded from chaos (disorder) to the amazing degree of order we observe today. Although scientists argue that the excess energy of the sun could have powered these improvements without violating the law of entropy, evolution would have required not one but hundreds of millions of small movements "uphill" from less order to more order. Even a single incidence of this would be unusual! Note that the apparent uphill movement of a seed to a tree or a fertilized egg to an adult animal is not random. The seeds contain the design code and instructions for "building" the organism from available materials.Law of biogenesis. People once believed that maggots were spontaneously generated from the flesh of dead animals. They thought life could come from non-life. Louis Pasteur proved beyond doubt that life cannot arise from non-life. This is not a scientific theory, but a law. Proponents of evolution contend that life did arise spontaneously from non-life at least once in the past, in other words, that this particular natural law was broken or nonexistent sometime in the past.Complexity of living cell. A single cell is far more complicated than any machine intelligent man has invented. A typical cell contains ten million million atoms (quadrillion). To reconstruct a model of a cell, atom by atom, one atom per second, would take about ten million years to finish. To get a cell by chance would require at least 100 functional proteins to appear simultaneously in one place. Even if that happened, would it be alive? A dead body (or a dead cell) has all of the proper proteins, enzymes, the cell wall, and the DNA design in one place, yet it is not alive. Complexity of DNA code. The capacity of DNA to store information vastly exceeds that of any known system created by intelligent man. If the information in an individual's DNA were in small type in books like the telephone book, it would take a stack of books 46 feet high to hold all the information. Yet there is a DNA molecule in every one of the ten trillion cells in a human body. The design information to specify every person who has ever lived and every species of animal and plant which has ever existed would fit into a cup, with room left over. Sexual reproduction. Evolutionists often point out that humans and chimpanzees share 99% of genetic material. Yet humans have 26 sets of chromosomes and chimps have 39. For two animals to mate, their chromosomes must match or "zip together." The proposed divergence of chimps and humans from a common ancestor is said to have occurred after sexual reproduction began. If the theory of evolution is true, an animal must have been born at some time in the past with a different number of chromosomes than its parents. Unless that animal was able to mate, it would have no adaptive advantage. Therefore, if evolution as proposed is true, two animals must have experienced the same change in the number of chromosomes in the same geographic location during the same generation. Although "coincidences" such as this have not been observed in nature, they must have happened thousands of times in the course of history if natural evolution is to account for what exists today.Interdependence of proteins and DNA. The proteins needed for life cannot be manufactured without the design specifications of DNA. DNA cannot replicate itself without enzymes (proteins). According to atheist Richard Dawkins, "DNA and protein are two pillars of a stable and elegant arch, which persists once all its parts simultaneously exist. It is hard to imagine it arising by any step-by-step process unless some earlier scaffolding has completely disappeared." Such scaffolding is completely speculative.Complexity of the brain. Microelectronics, created by intelligent man, can pack more than a million circuits within a cubic foot. The brain has been estimated to pack a million million circuits per cubic foot. The human brain contains about ten billion nerve cells, each of which can put out between 10,000 and 100,000 connectors. The number of possible associations, hence the number of potential thoughts a person can think, may exceed the number of atoms in the universe. The brain is by far the most complex thing known to man.Probability. There are about 1070 atoms in the observable universe. There are only 1090 seconds in the 15 billion years generally said to be the age of the universe. The probability of spontaneously forming the smallest replicating protein molecule by chance is 1 in 10450. The probability of spontaneously forming proteins and DNA for the smallest self-replicating entity is 1 in 10167,626. The probability of a simple living cell reassembling itself under ideal natural conditions if all components were present but chemical bonds were broken is 1 in 10100,000,000,000. Mathematicians consider any event with a probability of less than 1 in 1050 to have a zero probability, i.e. to be impossible regardless of how much time is available.Mutations. Mutations are errors in DNA copying. They are very rare and 99.99% of them are harmful or fatal. DNA has a built-in "proofreading" system with such accuracy that a typist would each have to type 20 billion books with only one typographical error for it to be matched. The neo-Darwinian synthesis proposes that mutations are the primary source of improved genetic material. Natural selection can select from an existing gene pool that which is "fittest" for a particular environment. It does not even attempt to explain the origin of the material in the gene pool from which selections are made. Where did the huge variety of genetic information come from in the first place? Information must come from somewhere. It does not arise spontaneously.Adaptation or "fit" of organisms to their environment. In many cases, many interlocking parts would have to come about at once for any mutation to be functional enough to be naturally selected. An example is the bombardier beetle. When threatened by an enemy, it blasts boiling hot gases from two tail pipes into the face of an attacker. The explosive is made inside the beetle's body by mixing together two dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, the beetle manufactures another type of chemical known as an "inhibitor." The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely. When the beetle is approached by a predator, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the attacker. How could such as system, utilizing such dangerous chemicals, have evolved randomly step by step? All parts are necessary for any of them to have an adaptive advantage. The probability of more than one advantageous mutation arising at once is incredibly slim.Darwin himself wrote:If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Convergence. The eye is an example of an extremely complex organ. Yet it is said to have evolved independently numerous times. Vertebrate eyes are imperfect. They're wired backwards and have a blind spot. Evolutionists argue that God would certainly not have designed them that way. Yet these imperfect eyes work better than any camera man has invented. By pure random chance, a single appearance of an eye would be highly improbable, impossible according to mathematicians. Darwin wrote:To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. The ability to fly supposedly evolved spontaneously by chance at least four times: for insects, birds, mammals (bats) and reptiles. Yet intelligent man did not figure out the principles of flight until the past century. Transitional species. Many of what Darwin considered to be transitional species have been discredited. Even Archaeopteryx, once thought to be transitional between reptiles and birds, is not. Modern birds have been found deeper in the fossil record. For the most part nature's divisions are not blurred and indistinct, currently or in the fossil record. The phyla appear in the fossil record almost instantaneously in what is known as the Cambrian explosion, with no apparent connections.Transitional leaps. According to evolutionists, reptiles evolved into birds. Yet the lung of a reptile is very different from the lung of a bird. How could one design evolve into the other step by tiny step, with each step being an improvement over the previous one? Microevolution cannot be extrapolated to explain macroevolution. Microevolution (one species of bird to another closely related species) has been fairly well established. But no natural mechanism has been even been suggested to explain how macroevolution (from reptile to bird, for example) could possibly have happened.The Anthropic Principle. The more scientists learn, the more it appears that the universe is tailor-made for life. The more accurately and extensively astronomers measure the universe, the more finely tuned they find it to be. There are a minimum of 25 characteristics of the universe which must be "just so" for life of any kind to be possible. There are more than 40 characteristics which must be "just so" for life as we know it on earth to exist. Here are some examplesistance from the moon to earth. If the moon were farther away, there would not be enough mixing of ocean waters by the tides. If it were closer, the tidal effects would be too great. Atmospheric electric discharge rate. If there were more lightning, there would be too much fire destruction. If less, not enough nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere. Rotational speed of the earth. If it were slower, there would be too much temperature difference between day and night. If it were faster, the wind velocities would be catastrophic. Surface gravity. If it were greater, the atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane. If it were less, the atmosphere would lose too much water vapor. Tilt of axis and distance from the sun. If it were different, the temperature variations would be too great to support a stable water cycle. Amount of water vapor. If it were greater, there would be a runaway greenhouse effect. If less, there would not be enough rainfall. Amount of carbon dioxide. If it were greater, there would be a runaway greenhouse effect. If less, plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis. If these things and many others were just slightly different, life as we know it would be impossible.</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>WE KNOW THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUEBECAUSE SPECIES HAVE BECOME EXTINCT "The best clincher is extinction. For every species now in existence, roughly ninety-nine have become extinct. The question of why they have become extinct is of enormous importance to evolutionists. It has been studied by many men, but a convincing answer has not been found. It remains unclear why any given species has disappeared."?*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 29. "[*Charles] Darwin wrote to him [Thomas Huxley] about his remarks about a certain extinct bird, `Your old birds have offered the best support to the theory of evolution.' "?*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 119.</div>http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist14.htm Evolution to me is so obvious...Ask any scientist in the world..you have to be oblivious to the world to believe Evolution is not true.
None, I find all mainstream religiono to be a bit ludicrous. And I'm not afraid of death, so I have no reason to try to trick myself into thinking I'm gonna float onto a cloud or fall into a fiery pit after I die.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (YugoRocketsFan @ May 26 2006, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Orthodox Christian, I beileve in Jesus.</div> I beleive in Jesus too, not sure how that alone makes you a Christian though.
My god is Kobe Bryant, JK I actually don't believe in any God, I think that when you die you die...thats it
