the universe ... chance? or does it have a creator ?

[megadoc1]

anyways anything after 10^50 power is considered mathematically impossible

d spike lets hear your imput..and I am not going tru that teapot thing with you eh

think about this, how many galaxies are there? then how many star systems are there, then how many stars, planets, planetoids, asteroids etc? then how many atoms are there? then how many subatomic particles are there?
did we cross 10^50 yet?

if not, then 10^50 one christ

i mean 10^50 +1, there, we've passed it.

actually all of the atoms in the known universe
should give you about 10^80 power
but mathematicians would tell you that anything
in more than 1to the 10^50 power is mathematically impossible,
so it is not currently possible to prove evolution.
it is not proven so therefore it cannot be fact!
it is either faith or fantasy

[megadoc1]

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2788

Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe - the man who asserted: "Life did not start here on earth but in space,"

come on mega, u can't source pieces of a persons contribution to justify your reasons

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwini ... nown09.php

do you believe in all his contributions or just part of it?

if I quoted from a christian you would say I took it from biased sources
just as you did with ravi zacharias...deal with it

as for now both cannot be fact

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Science does not require you to believe anything!!!
it is not about belief. Something is only proven in science when facts are presented or empirical evidence is discovered. Scientific theories can be dis-proven using the scientific process. ONLY the facts stand up. Science has NOTHING to do with belief!

you seem to be using your concept of "Belief=Truth" to describe Science - they are totally different!

I agree with you there but thats just talk look at the walk

Much has been written and spoken by evolutionists to the effect that evolution is happening today but so slowly that we cannot observe it. What is the difference between that idea and this: the reason we cannot observe evolution happening today is that it's not taking place. Is one conclusion more valid than the other?

is that seriously your argument?

we see evolution taking place in anti-biotic resistance - you have taken anti-biotics before haven't you?

yes Science shows that evolution takes place very slowly but there is plenty proof all around us in fossils found all over the world showing the evolution and natural selection of species over time, even in humans.

on another note: I have a question for you

let us say that the universe was created by God; there are many religions and each has their own creation story; why is yours the correct one?

[mamoo_pagal]

http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2788

Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe - the man who asserted: "Life did not start here on earth but in space,"

come on mega, u can't source pieces of a persons contribution to justify your reasons

http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwini ... nown09.php

do you believe in all his contributions or just part of it?

if I quoted from a christian you would say I took it from biased sources
just as you did with ravi zacharias...deal with it

bwahahahah........... i done once more u defeat yourself
where did I reject ravi zacharias, he actually has some good arguments...........i just ask if you support his version of Christianity?

u got all the answers mega.............all hail jes.........oh I mean mega

[devrat]

Megadoc can you describe with the utmost honesty how you physically picture god....I am just curious.

amm I don't physically picture God,thats kinda like an insult for a finite man
to come up with what he think an infinite being looks like
God even forbids it ......

So why do they depict Jesus as a White male in a white robe with long blond hair and a flowing beard ?

I know that is the image subscribed by many......just want to know why he is depicted in this manner and why, if what you say above is correct, is a depiction necessary.

[pyung99]

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in.
Some of us just go one god further."

Professor Richard Dawkins

[megadoc1]

Much has been written and spoken by evolutionists to the effect that evolution is happening today but so slowly that we cannot observe it. What is the difference between that idea and this: the reason we cannot observe evolution happening today is that it's not taking place. Is one conclusion more valid than the other?

is that seriously your argument?

we see evolution taking place in anti-biotic resistance - you have taken anti-biotics before haven't you?

yes Science shows that evolution takes place very slowly but there is plenty proof all around us in fossils found all over the world showing the evolution and natural selection of species over time, even in humans.

Evolutionist writers and speakers have also used the small variations within types of plants/animals (sometimes called "microevolution") as proof of evolution. However, "Microevolution (small changes or variations) involves small scale biological changes only (e.g., color, size). Microevolution does not produce new genetic information; it only reshuffles existing genes. The gene pool remains constant." (Paul Taylor, The Illustrated Origins Answer Book [Eden Communications, 1995], p. 84.) Evolution (or "macroevolution") is about one plant/animal changing into another plant/animal and microevolution simply cannot be used in any way to explain or prove it, as Darrel Kautz has clearly stated:

on another note: I have a question for you

let us say that the universe was created by God; there are many religions and each has their own creation story; why is yours is the correct one?

off topic!!!

[sMASH]

anyways anything after 10^50 power is considered mathematically impossible

d spike lets hear your imput..and I am not going tru that teapot thing with you eh

think about this, how many galaxies are there? then how many star systems are there, then how many stars, planets, planetoids, asteroids etc? then how many atoms are there? then how many subatomic particles are there?
did we cross 10^50 yet?

if not, then 10^50 one christ

i mean 10^50 +1, there, we've passed it.

actually all of the atoms in the known universe
should give you about 10^80 power
but mathematicians would tell you that anything
in more than 1to the 10^50 power is mathematically impossible,
so it is not currently possible to prove evolution.
it is not proven so therefore it cannot be fact!
it is either faith or fantasy

ok, well sorry, we would tell the other 10^30 subatomic particles that they are impossible and do not exist. udfr particles!

but i now tell u to add 1 to that number and u have 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

the fact that there are more particles than what a mathematician says there can be, is not a limit of the universe, it is a limit of the mathematician.

u are saying the same thing as, 'i cannot conceptualize it, therefore it does not exist' ' if i can't see it, it ain't thar'

mathematics does not determine nor rule any thing. mathematics is a method of describing things. if it is mathematically impossible, then it is difficult to be described, but that does not mean it does not exist.

[megadoc1]

I am sorry sMash if you don't understand what was posted

Chandra Wickramasinghe Professor of Applied Mathematics and Astronomy

...Life cannot have had a random beginning... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2,000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court,...The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems...cannot in our view be generated by what are often called "natural" processes...For life to have originated on the Earth it would be necessary that quite explicit instruction should have been provided for its assembly. ...

Dr. Emile Borel, one of the world's great experts on mathematical probability, formulated a basic law of probability. It states that the occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in 10 x 50-power - a much smaller figure than what we have been dealing with - is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen - no matter how much time is alloted, no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place. In other words, life by chance is mathematically impossible on earth or any place else

[sMASH]

this will be my only contribution as it is the only information of this kind in layman's terms...........
the other threads were now conducive to receiving this information.





.

seeing as how i have thought about these same concepts at times, i imagined these new ideas and concepts in these videos would be satisfying. instead, i am quite disturbed by them.

[sMASH]

my argument still stands. just add more zeroes.
probably, 10^40000 lightening bolts struck, and life started with 10^40000 +1 lightening bolt.


arighty, let me put it this way.
play whe.
if u have 36 balls, what is the chance of number 7 ball being selected? 1 chance in 36.
but when it is time to select a ball, what chance is there that any ball be selected? 36 chances in 36, i.e. 1/1 i.e. every time play whe is called, there is a definite chance that a ball would be selected, that event would always occur, every single time.

as long as there is a chance, at some point, it can happen, and it does not have to happen at the last time the probability says there are.

[megadoc1]

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/le_stepforward.htm

A Step Forward in Ohio

Phillip E. Johnson

In mid-October, a panel of the Ohio State School Board voted unanimously to adopt a new science teaching standard that allows teachers to inform students of evidence against the theory of evolution as well as for it. The standard defines "science" as the search for ever more adequate explanations of our world, rather than explanations that consider natural causes only. Teachers will presumably no longer be subject to dismissal for informing students about the grounds on which the ubiquitous peppered moth example has been severely criticized, or for saying that the impressive illustrations of vertebrate embryo similarities in their textbooks are inaccurate, taken from drawings by a nineteenth-century German Darwinian who was a little too eager to convince his countrymen that the theory was true.

This vote is a significant breakthrough in a major state towards official recognition that there is a scientific as well as a public controversy over the theory of evolution, and that the contested issues ought to be taught rather than suppressed. After having fought fiercely against the new standards, some Darwinists are now putting the best face on their loss by describing the outcome as a compromise, or even a victory for evolution, since it requires that the subject be taught. Other Darwinists are outraged that the state is recognizing that there is a controversy, and threaten to go to court to attack the "teach the controversy" approach as unconstitutional. Even creationists have mixed reactions. Some are negative, either because they think that the Genesis time scale is all-important or because they understandably don’t trust the public schools to teach the subject fairly regardless of what the standards say.

I toured northern Ohio just after the decision, speaking to large, enthusiastic church crowds, and even leading a three-hour seminar for the area’s ministers. I was trying to wake up well-meaning people to exactly what is at stake. Darwinism is only superficially about biology, I explained, and is culturally important because it implies that man created an imaginary God rather than that God created man. That implication explains why the media pundits throw a tantrum whenever they hear that the theory of evolution is being challenged, and that is why creation is not an issue that ministers can afford to delegate to scientists. It is futile to try to teach Christian morality if you do not also teach people why they should believe, in spite of what the most prominent spokesmen for evolutionary science are saying and writing, that God is real rather than a gradually vanishing product of the pre-modern imagination.

I count the Ohio decision as a victory for the fact of divine creation and for intellectual integrity, but not because I expect science teaching in Ohio schools to change significantly as a direct result. In these state conflicts, I am pursuing a strategy of "consciousness-raising," much like that employed by feminists to transform their movement from a laughingstock in the 1960s to an unstoppable force in the 1970s.

People who are being oppressed by unjust rules or dishonest intellectual conventions often do not realize it, either because their understanding is superficial or because they fatalistically assume that their condition is just "the way things have always been" and hence unchangeable. Change happens when they begin to understand that what is being done to them is outrageous and that the oppressive rules and conventions could be different if enough people combined in a determined effort to change them.

Considered in isolation, the Ohio decision is no more than a step towards teaching evolution as a controversial subject rather than a doctrine that everyone is expected to believe without question. I see the possibility, however, that this first small victory in a major state may be a sign that the tide of battle is at last turning. The greatest advantage the Darwinists have had is one that other materialists have exploited before them. It is the aura of inevitability, the sense that they embody a science that is predestined to roll over all opposition. People who have been indoctrinated in a modernist mindset no longer believe in the final victory of Christ. They believe that every knee shall bend and every tongue confess that science always advances.

Recently, a prominent Darwinist compared people like me to the Japanese soldier who was discovered hiding on a Philippine island many years after World War II had ended, believing that the war was still on and that Japan might yet stage a comeback. Darwinists do not say that they will win control of the culture someday. They say that they won that control in 1925 after the Scopes trial, as dramatized in Inherit the Wind, and that some people just haven’t heard the news. Their celebration may be premature. If that Japanese soldier had appeared in 1960 with an army and had won even a small victory over the Americans, the history books would have to be rewritten.

The decisive turn of events is occurring not in public school curricula, but in the minds and writings of those who know the evidence and have some independence of mind. Darwinists know they are losing evidence, not gaining it, and that they are also losing public support. They are desperately trying to postpone admitting, for example, that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks and that natural selection does not produce increases in genetic information. They are also getting practice in explaining away defeats rather than just in crowing over victories.

Once something starts to go wrong, an overconfident blusterer can find himself in trouble very quickly. For now, the Darwinists still dominate, but they are very worried, and they show it by their constantly shifting defensive tactics, ridiculing Christians one day and then proclaiming the harmony of religion and science the next. Those who love truth need only summon their courage to stand up to the bluff, and resolve to follow the evidence rather than the fashion. The ultimate triumph of He Who Is the Truth is assured, not the ultimate triumph of scientific materialism. You can count on it.

Copyright 2003 the Fellowship of St. James. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
File Date: 5.15.03

[sMASH]

the hardest thing is, i don't see it as a competition.

is just that, while creationist continue to beat up 'we know e'ry thing already, we don't need to know more' the scientists will continue to study the world around them, develop technologies, and offer it to the creationists to use to tote their propaganda.

imagine, a thousand years from now, if no technologies and records of the technologies from the 20th century and before are easily accessible, but the improved versions are being used at that time, creationists would argue that the computer was created not developed. some archeologist would find some pieces of ram from 20 years from now in some excavated dig site, and the creationist would argue that there was nothing found in the strata below it, so there was nothing to predate it, so it was created as well.

[Razkal]

^are you sure you weren't a ghostwriter for the bible thingy?

you know the logic too well

[Sky]

anyways anything after 10^50 power is considered mathematically impossible

Lol did you just clip the number system and infinity?
Btw, there was time, no matter how small the propability was.
The Earth and Sun aint young y'know. Human civilization is but a coffee shop scene in the 10 season dvd box set.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Much has been written and spoken by evolutionists to the effect that evolution is happening today but so slowly that we cannot observe it. What is the difference between that idea and this: the reason we cannot observe evolution happening today is that it's not taking place. Is one conclusion more valid than the other?

is that seriously your argument?

we see evolution taking place in anti-biotic resistance - you have taken anti-biotics before haven't you?

yes Science shows that evolution takes place very slowly but there is plenty proof all around us in fossils found all over the world showing the evolution and natural selection of species over time, even in humans.

Evolutionist writers and speakers have also used the small variations within types of plants/animals (sometimes called "microevolution") as proof of evolution. However, "Microevolution (small changes or variations) involves small scale biological changes only (e.g., color, size). Microevolution does not produce new genetic information; it only reshuffles existing genes. The gene pool remains constant." (Paul Taylor, The Illustrated Origins Answer Book [Eden Communications, 1995], p. 84.) Evolution (or "macroevolution") is about one plant/animal changing into another plant/animal and microevolution simply cannot be used in any way to explain or prove it, as Darrel Kautz has clearly stated:

How is it that you agree with these statements, yet disagree with other scientific statements? It seems to are picking and choosing statements that only agree with what you want to believe is true.

on another note: I have a question for you

let us say that the universe was created by God; there are many religions and each has their own creation story; why is yours is the correct one?

off topic!!!

LOL how is that off topic?

you are evading.

[Death-Row]

the original article could have been written better. make it alot shorter. alot more interesting instead of spreading the facts so thin.

good stuff tho.

[megadoc1]

How is it that you agree with these statements, yet disagree with other scientific statements?

examples please!!!

It seems to are picking and choosing statements that only agree with what you want to believe is true.

I can say the same about you ,where do we go from here?

LOL how is that off topic?

you said so yourself "on another note: I have a question for you" ...remember?

you are evading.

I could accuse you of doing the same when you tried to take the topic in another direction
but ................

anyways ............ tell me something about evolution, that is proven or true,
tell me what you know about it.

[pyung99]

Richard Dawkins b tha guru on this topic.

[Jonathan]

oh for figgityfuck sake, another ched on this?

Ent? I dunno why men getting so chain up by them christrolls nah...

Anyways......

[Sky]

Hey Megadumb1, check this out..

Psalm 90:4
A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Psalm 90:3-5 (in Context) Psalm 90 (Whole Chapter)
Ecclesiastes 6:6
even if he lives a thousand years twice over but fails to enjoy his prosperity. Do not all go to the same place?
Ecclesiastes 6:5-7 (in Context) Ecclesiastes 6 (Whole Chapter)
2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.
2 Peter 3:7-9 (in Context) 2 Peter 3 (Whole Chapter)

Realize something? I really doubt it. You think this is the 1st world your great timeless deity created, ent? LOL. He could say six days and you don't know how long that is.
You're also assuming that God revolves around us. Big mistake bub.
Seriously dude, are you that stupid? And no, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm serious.
Science and religion would coexist if it weren't for stupid people like you. So what if we came from apes. Lemme see...Fossils vs stuff people wrote down.
You start another thread with your crap and it should really be seen as spam and locked.
Only reason it isn't is because you entertain Duane.

And Duane it is NOT NICE to play along with morons for your own entertainment.

[megadoc1]

Sky I cant really take you seriously, last time you said that you found God on your own.....
anyways the topic is about the fact that evolution isn't proven so it should not be considered as fact!!!!!
you can state your world view and move on ,but this topic is not about throwing words at one another.
lets leave that for little boys...

[MG Man]

And Duane it is NOT NICE to play along with morons for your own entertainment.

Boodas gonna bood

[K74T]

And Duane it is NOT NICE to play along with morons for your own entertainment.

Boodas gonna bood

Boodow!!!

[Jonathan]

Sky I cant really take you seriously, last time you said that you found God on your own.....
anyways the topic is about the fact that evolution isn't proven so it should not be considered as fact!!!!!
you can state your world view and move on ,but this topic is not about throwing words at one another.
lets leave that for little boys...

[Sky]

Sky I cant really take you seriously, last time you said that you found God on your own.....
anyways the topic is about the fact that evolution isn't proven so it should not be considered as fact!!!!!
you can state your world view and move on ,but this topic is not about throwing words at one another.
lets leave that for little boys...

*Sigh*
Fossils + carbon dating = timeline showing evolution. How else you want it?
That's as simple as it can get there. But that contradicts your beliefs right?
Throwing words? No son, I seriously believe you're a moron. That's my belief. Want the facts? check all your other posts. You're blatantly ignoring FACTS PROVEN because they contradict your twisted reality.
You agree with Mr. scientist when it suits you, but when you don't like what they say, they're against God. That is throwing words? No, those are facts, that's what you're doing. And if you don't want little boys in here just hit Alt F4.

[sweetiepaper]

Realize something? I really doubt it. You think this is the 1st world your great timeless deity created, ent? LOL. He could say six days and you don't know how long that is.
You're also assuming that God revolves around us. Big mistake bub.
Seriously dude, are you that stupid? And no, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm serious.
Science and religion would coexist if it weren't for stupid people like you. So what if we came from apes. Lemme see...Fossils vs stuff people wrote down.
You start another thread with your crap and it should really be seen as spam and locked.
Only reason it isn't is because you entertain Duane.

And Duane it is NOT NICE to play along with morons for your own entertainment.

Sky, if you really believe YOU came from an ape, i believe you did too.

[Razkal]

Realize something? I really doubt it. You think this is the 1st world your great timeless deity created, ent? LOL. He could say six days and you don't know how long that is.
You're also assuming that God revolves around us. Big mistake bub.
Seriously dude, are you that stupid? And no, I'm not trying to insult you. I'm serious.
Science and religion would coexist if it weren't for stupid people like you. So what if we came from apes. Lemme see...Fossils vs stuff people wrote down.
You start another thread with your crap and it should really be seen as spam and locked.
Only reason it isn't is because you entertain Duane.

And Duane it is NOT NICE to play along with morons for your own entertainment.

Sky, if you really believe YOU came from an ape, i believe you did too.

i love this pic!

[Razkal]

And Duane it is NOT NICE to play along with morons for your own entertainment.

Boodas gonna bood

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahhaahaha!!!!!

[DFC]

i believe...We should all worship Optimus Prime.

He has saved this world countless times, and is the epitome of Righteousness , Truth and Service to Humanity.
He has been the source of inspiration for billions of people all around the world, and still is.

All Hail Optimus Prime !