Well.I am a Shia Imami Ismaili Muslim.I am pretty religous, I try to pray atleast once a day and I goto REC (Religious education center) every Saturday morning and I goto Jamat Khane (Ismaili Mosque) once a week.So yeah, count me religous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Christif your intrested in it enough, I suggest just checking this book out...it a true story book about an atheist who sets out to prove religion is an hoax...where he eventually becomes a christian from his findings...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I got really pissed cause you were saying "bullsh** this, and bullsh** that"...although I didnt read the rest of your posts(which I shouldve done). But I beg of you to research is fully...and try your hardest not to be biased...and see where you end up.</div>I've probably learned and forgotten more about evolution than you'll ever know, and the truth is that it is generally accepted by a vast majority of the scientific community. Did you ever look at the galapagos finches study (peter and rosemary grant) that effectively proved evolution to be fact? Do you know anything about homologous structures? Vestigial structures? The fossil record? These each provide nearly irrefutable proof that evolution has occurred.Here are the three basic tenets to prove evolution to the scientifically challenged:1. There is variation among species - IE some proboscis monkeys have bigger noses than others2. This variation is passed down from parents - IE a proboscis monkey with a bigger nose is more likely to have a bigger nosed child3. Some traits are more useful to surviving to reproduce than others - IE a proboscis monkey with a bigger nose is more attractive to the female and is therefore more likely to reproduce.These three facts make evolution inevitable. The first two are proven beyond a doubt, so you'd have to make the argument that organisms breed absolutely randomly and are all going to live the same amount of time to prove evolution is not real.An even simpler, more hands on, way to explain this to you. Take the case of dogs. Dogs are some of the most variable animals in the world, and can be anywhere from a 6 inch 5 pound papillion to a 4 foot great dane or a 300 pound mastiff. All dogs initially descended from the gray wolf, as seen by the fossil record, homologous structures etc. But they are all very different. This is because Grey Wolves initially became domesticated when the less vicious ones were taken in as pets, thus, over time, making their need for fangs obsolete. Over the years, dogs were bred for certain attributes; Labrador retrievers were bred for bringing back ducks without damaging them, hence the soft mouths and retrieving abilities, while pit bulls were bred to be vicious guard dogs. This is an irrefutable example of artificial selection, that a species can be changed if it is bred to produce certain traits for a long period of time.With artificial selection a given, the only way you can say natural selection doesn't happen, is making a claim that there are no traits that are more beneficial than others, and that geographic, temporal, behavioral, and reproductive isolation don't occur. I'd like to see a legitimate scientific article proving that they don't occur.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 12 2007, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I've probably learned and forgotten more about evolution than you'll ever know, and the truth is that it is generally accepted by a vast majority of the scientific community. Did you ever look at the galapagos finches study (peter and rosemary grant) that effectively proved evolution to be fact? Do you know anything about homologous structures? Vestigial structures? The fossil record? These each provide nearly irrefutable proof that evolution has occurred.Here are the three basic tenets to prove evolution to the scientifically challenged:1. There is variation among species - IE some proboscis monkeys have bigger noses than others2. This variation is passed down from parents - IE a proboscis monkey with a bigger nose is more likely to have a bigger nosed child3. Some traits are more useful to surviving to reproduce than others - IE a proboscis monkey with a bigger nose is more attractive to the female and is therefore more likely to reproduce.These three facts make evolution inevitable. The first two are proven beyond a doubt, so you'd have to make the argument that organisms breed absolutely randomly and are all going to live the same amount of time to prove evolution is not real.An even simpler, more hands on, way to explain this to you. Take the case of dogs. Dogs are some of the most variable animals in the world, and can be anywhere from a 6 inch 5 pound papillion to a 4 foot great dane or a 300 pound mastiff. All dogs initially descended from the gray wolf, as seen by the fossil record, homologous structures etc. But they are all very different. This is because Grey Wolves initially became domesticated when the less vicious ones were taken in as pets, thus, over time, making their need for fangs obsolete. Over the years, dogs were bred for certain attributes; Labrador retrievers were bred for bringing back ducks without damaging them, hence the soft mouths and retrieving abilities, while pit bulls were bred to be vicious guard dogs. This is an irrefutable example of artificial selection, that a species can be changed if it is bred to produce certain traits for a long period of time.With artificial selection a given, the only way you can say natural selection doesn't happen, is making a claim that there are no traits that are more beneficial than others, and that geographic, temporal, behavioral, and reproductive isolation don't occur. I'd like to see a legitimate scientific article proving that they don't occur.</div>But the thing with the dogs and the monkeys is that they already had the genes present in them to have different attributes. They didn't just pop up one day with new genes in them. That's like saying that you could have black hair and I could have blond hair and that I evolved from you because some girls like blond hair more.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Sure it angers you, but control your temper and realize that there isn't just ONE way.</div>But the thing is...there really is only one way. Jesus is the only way. I'm not trying to be offensive or anything like that, just letting you know.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>But the thing with the dogs and the monkeys is that they already had the genes present in them to have different attributes. They didn't just pop up one day with new genes in them. That's like saying that you could have black hair and I could have blond hair and that I evolved from you because some girls like blond hair more.</div>Yes, but those genes were not present in gray wolves. Mutations over time cause those changes. And changes in phenotypic ratios is still natural selection; as soon as a species has reproductive, geographic, temporal, or behavioral isolation it is a separate species.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>But the thing is...there really is only one way. Jesus is the only way. I'm not trying to be offensive or anything like that, just letting you know.</div>yes, but to muslims Mohammed is the only way. To hindus..... 914896824 gods are the only ways. To you, jesus is the only way and the rest are myths. To them, their deity or deities are the only way and the rest are myths. There is no more evidence supporting any religion than any other (zero) and therefore people choose the religion whose statutes suit them.
I love God, I'm a Christian, I go every single week, and I feel that my connection with God is very strong at the moment, and it can only get stronger as I go along.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SunnyD @ Apr 12 2007, 03:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I love God, I'm a Christian, I go every single week, and I feel that my connection with God is very strong at the moment, and it can only get stronger as I go along.</div>to the bathroom?clarity please
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 12 2007, 05:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, but those genes were not present in gray wolves. Mutations over time cause those changes. And changes in phenotypic ratios is still natural selection; as soon as a species has reproductive, geographic, temporal, or behavioral isolation it is a separate species.</div>Mutations don't make good things. Mutations always harm a person or thing, not help them. If you can name one time when a mutation has actually helped something, then you might have a standing point. But wait...oh yeah. There isn't one. That's why you don't see a lizard with like half a wing, and then only 3 legs. That's because it won't survive. It will die on it's own, get eaten by another animal, or another lizard would kill it for survival of the fittest. They did tests on fruit flies using mutations because their genetic code is easy to manipulate, and they found that every fruit fly mutated would die very quickly, and rarely live past a short time in childhood.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (STAT @ Apr 12 2007, 04:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Mutations don't make good things. Mutations always harm a person or thing, not help them. If you can name one time when a mutation has actually helped something, then you might have a standing point. But wait...oh yeah. There isn't one. That's why you don't see a lizard with like half a wing, and then only 3 legs. That's because it won't survive. It will die on it's own, get eaten by another animal, or another lizard would kill it for survival of the fittest. They did tests on fruit flies using mutations because their genetic code is easy to manipulate, and they found that every fruit fly mutated would die very quickly, and rarely live past a short time in childhood.</div>you, my friend, are extremely uneducated when it comes to biology and it shows. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of positive mutations, and in fact many plant breeders deliberately radiate various types of plants in the hopes of getting a plant with superior attributes. And answer my point about phenotypic ratio why don't you, after you look it up so you don't make a complete fool out of yourself.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SunnyD @ Apr 12 2007, 07:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I love God, I'm a Christian, I go every single week, and I feel that my connection with God is very strong at the moment, and it can only get stronger as I go along.</div>I think you'd get along very well with a good friend of mine. Christian, Pistons fan as well.
Yes, mutations are a very good thing...really, they do more better than harm for us...I believe that animals evolve through years, and change to their enviorment, but I dont believe we evolved from a common ancester. Why isnt their a living "missing link"? I think its very obvious that we have defiently changed throught thousands of years, but that doesn't mean we evolved from micro-organisms. Mans age and body build has changed itself from the Earths enviroment alone...so theres no doubt about that. But theres no real hard evidence of evolution. The skulls you see on TV that were supposedly our ancestors arent what alotve people think. I believe I saw this documentery where they said that got the skull parts from a 30 mile radius...which is ridiculas if you believe they are all the same species...theres never ben a body discovered in whole suggesting that man evolved from an ape like species. But theres been bodies found frozen that dates back thousands of years that besides from a slight size different, are exactly like man today. And its proven that man thousands of years ago we much bigger and lived much longer then from the earths atmosphere. Supposedly, the air then was almost pure oxygen(which it isnt now days), so they, in result, were built different. Just for a fun fact, it is said that a person from now days can go back to then, and of they took a deep breath, they could hold it up to 9 minutes...which is amazing. My point is, man evolves with its enviroment...but we've always been human, we didnt come from another ancestor species.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ Apr 12 2007, 06:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>you, my friend, are extremely uneducated when it comes to biology and it shows. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of positive mutations, and in fact many plant breeders deliberately radiate various types of plants in the hopes of getting a plant with superior attributes. And answer my point about phenotypic ratio why don't you, after you look it up so you don't make a complete fool out of yourself.</div>I haven't heard of any positive mutations that take place...not being offense but would you mind sharing with me so I could further educate myself?And I can't answer you about the phenotypic ratios because I don't know what that means lol.
Well, for example, people who live by the eqautor like in Latin Amercian countries, has Sickle Cell Amenia...people think its a bad thing...but having that protects them from diseases that mosquitos give...theres good mutations.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>theres good mutations.</div>X-Men for example.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>But theres no real hard evidence of evolution</div>have you read anything I've said this thread? Evolution is all but proven and is in similar standing with the principle of gravity in terms of how well established it is. Vestigial Structures, Homologous Structures, embryonic structures, the Fossil Record, and many other things which I have referenced.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I believe that animals evolve through years, and change to their enviorment, but I dont believe we evolved from a common ancester. Why isnt their a living "missing link"? I think its very obvious that we have defiently changed throught thousands of years, but that doesn't mean we evolved from micro-organisms.</div>Now we're finally getting somewhere. So you believe in evolution, you don't believe in common descent. They are different things. The reason there is no living "missing link" is because if it could live for millions of years it would have no reason to evolve. The "missing links" are in the form of, for the millionth time, Vestigial Structures, Homologous Structures, embryonic structures, and the Fossil Record.
thats all into theory, of course we're going to have similar structures. But please...show me a body that was naturally mummified that shows even the slightest clue that theres such as thing evolution. And dont show me anything about adaptations...I wanna see this "missing link" hard evidence thats out there. Point is, as more and more scientists study this "theory", they discover more and more that its almost impossible for evolution to occur...I feel like that alotve people who believe in evolution just want so bad to prove religion wrong..and prove that theres no superior being. If you search and study enough, you will find that religion is more believable than evolution....believe me, I have done so for atleast 4 yrs now. At one point, I didnt really believe in god..but as I researched more and more, evolution became more unlikely, and religion became more believable and proven. Theres so much evidence from around the eastern hemisphere that proves the monoreligion correct.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (austingriz @ Apr 12 2007, 09:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>thats all into theory, of course we're going to have similar structures. But please...show me a body that was naturally mummified that shows even the slightest clue that theres such as thing evolution. And dont show me anything about adaptations...I wanna see this "missing link" hard evidence thats out there. Point is, as more and more scientists study this "theory", they discover more and more that its almost impossible for evolution to occur...</div>again, a "theory" is testable and generally accepted into the scientific community. I've been feeding you enough evidence to teach a biology course and you've responded with conjecture and hearsay. I'd like to say you provide some evidence besides statements that you don't back up.
What!?!? I dont back my stuff up?Theres clear pictures of an ark on top of Mount Aratat, which is "ironcily" the name given in the Bible to the mountain...ironicly...Noahs ark landed on.http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html^outside archaeology findings that are EXTREMELY similar to the Bibletheres several more instances like this...just find them. It is said through many historians that the Bible/Torah/Koran are the most accurate books in history....theres been several battles from the Bible identified in archaelogy, theres been scriptures from other civilizations that agree with events in the Bible...so much stuff...its hard not to believe it.Also, before dinosaures were discovere, in the Bible, it states "and giants roamed the earth with man"...what giants though? Its dinosaures. I just heard about this, so I dont know much about it. But I heard a theory on the radio that dinos became extinct from catostrophic drouts around the time of the flood...which, if I there were alotve drouts, where was the water? In the sky, as clouds, where it all poured and came the flood...but I only heard that once...not sure if I believe that.I have to go to bed though, but I do want to thank you seriously because you respected my beliefs....usually by now, somebody wouldve blasted off on religion...but you didnt.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (austingriz @ Apr 12 2007, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What!?!? I dont back my stuff up?Theres clear pictures of an ark on top of Mount Aratat, which is "ironcily" the name given in the Bible to the mountain...ironicly...Noahs ark landed on.http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a009.html^outside archaeology findings that are EXTREMELY similar to the Bibletheres several more instances like this...just find them. It is said through many historians that the Bible/Torah/Koran are the most accurate books in history....theres been several battles from the Bible identified in archaelogy, theres been scriptures from other civilizations that agree with events in the Bible...so much stuff...its hard not to believe it.Also, before dinosaures were discovere, in the Bible, it states "and giants roamed the earth with man"...what giants though? Its dinosaures. I just heard about this, so I dont know much about it. But I heard a theory on the radio that dinos became extinct from catostrophic drouts around the time of the flood...which, if I there were alotve drouts, where was the water? In the sky, as clouds, where it all poured and came the flood...but I only heard that once...not sure if I believe that.</div>not only are those sources weak but they're also unrelated to the evolutionary discussion. As much as a lot of christians want to believe it is, evolution doesn't contradict christianity (unless you're a young earth wacko) and doesn't have anything to do with it. And no, you don't back your stuff up with anything but hearsay and conjecture.As for the dinosaurs, a book written by dozens of separate people altered constantly over hundreds of years and translated that says "giants" walked the earth is weak at best.And stop throwing around the word "theory" about things that are not theories.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I love my religion. Its Sikhism.</div>What exactly does that religion consist of besides taxis?
