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

[Razkal]

^Jai!

[turbohead]

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 ?

dev why yuh had to go an spoil it for meh. megadoc and bluefete does be contradicting themselves right through like a pack ah starburst.

i dont believe i came from apes, i believe in creation. why are all subjected to believe wat we want to believe and cannot be strayed unless proved wrong otherwise, thus far i havent been seen where i went wrong in my view with the God aspect, its working for me as how your evolution from apes working for you. to each his own. i strongly believe in the Quran as God's final msg to mankind as its a book that was never proven doubtful by its words. i dont cast aspersions on another man's believe just to gain triumph over him. rather i try to reason and show the views that we thought to me which as i said made sense to me.
when someone asked me if i believe in God even though i have no image of him of what he may be, i ask them how do you know that there is the air even though you dont see it in front your eyes or nose which you use to inhale it. its makes me stronger in faith to know that if i follow my deen that i may have and opportunity to be as his guest in the hearafter and be of the company of the prophets and the righteous.
now all who hate now because of the statements dont go randomly Quoting excerpts from the Quran that may make it be viewed as violent or hateful rather try getting the verses before and after and make sense out of it then you shall see true knowledge.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

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?

No you can't - I don't pick and choose. Facts are facts. You claim this scientist is right and then deny all the other scientists who say man evolved from apes and that the earth is billions of years old

LOL how is that off topic?

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

if it's one thing, you excel at failed arguments. Please leave childish logic aside and answer my question: What makes your religion's creation story right and other religion's creation story wrong?

you are evading.

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

your childishness again; I am not trying to take the discussion in another direction - we are talking about creationism and I am asking you why your creation story is the right one.

but ................

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

what I know about it is irrelevant in making it the truth. Scientists have found empirical evidence that species evolve over periods of time to adapt to their environment. Fossils and DNA of many plant and animal species have been found to prove this: "The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight".

if there is such empirical evidence of what you believe to be the creation story then please show it here.

[turbohead]

megadoc1 wrote:
Duane 3NE 2NR wrote:
LOL how is that off topic?

you said so yourself "on another note: I have a question for you" ...remember?
if it's one thing, you excel at failed arguments. Please leave childish logic aside and answer my question: What makes your religion's creation story right and other religion's creation story wrong?

i was watching a lecture by ahmed deedat a well reknowned scholar on comparitive religion, he was debating jimmy swaggart on if the bible i truly God's word, interesting enough it would be confusing for me had i been interested in joining the christian faith on which bible to take as the true word 'king james version' or the 'rsv' which was dated earlier to the time of Jesus which may have been a word to the truer sense, but then when the king james version came out the added verses and changed some to suit themselves. how could you do that?

take it in for yourself.... i may be wrong

http://youtu.be/BdDi-1CPmwE

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ the bible and the qu'ran both have relatively the same account of the creation. Both have the garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and the serpent, there are a few small differences. Both religions however believe only their exact version is correct.

They both agree however that the Hindu creation story is incorrect.
On what grounds?

[Soundwave]

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 !

fcuk you...

[sMASH]

ummm, optimus prime is good, but against sound wave,,,,, 0.0 not so sure.

[sMASH]

^ the bible and the qu'ran both have relatively the same account of the creation. Both have the garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and the serpent, there are a few small differences. Both religions however believe only their exact version is correct.

They both agree however that the Hindu creation story is incorrect.
On what grounds?

comparison between both tellings, qu'ran pwns bible.

with respect to the other faiths, i personally have not ventured to learn about others so much.i came across the stories of the native american indian and teh asians, and they seemed a lot less believable than what i already know.
but at the end of the day, the grounds are it is the default, because it is part and parcel of this faith.

for me, there is enough lee way in the the qu'ranic telling to accommodate big bang version of every thing.

but, the pronounced way in which man's creation is described in the qur'an points towards distinct creation instead of evolution. but just as the word to describe days is used but the meaning is also used for period of time, i am considering if it is just a marker of a significant step in man's journey.
then there are the ancient aliens people. some put forward that animals may have been modified by some extra terrestrial beings or event causing the arrival of man. now that sounds like a scenario which could have been artistically retold as divine creation.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ the bible and the qu'ran both have relatively the same account of the creation. Both have the garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and the serpent, there are a few small differences. Both religions however believe only their exact version is correct.

They both agree however that the Hindu creation story is incorrect.
On what grounds?

comparison between both tellings, qu'ran pwns bible.

but why?

with respect to the other faiths, i personally have not ventured to learn about others so much.i came across the stories of the native american indian and teh asians, and they seemed a lot less believable than what i already know.

that sounds like megadoc1 kinda thinking - it isn't what he already knows and therefore it is false.

but at the end of the day, the grounds are it is the default, because it is part and parcel of this faith.

not sure what you mean there - are you saying that the Adam and Eve account is the default creation story? Tell that to 1 billion people living in China

then there are the ancient aliens people. some put forward that animals may have been modified by some extra terrestrial beings or event causing the arrival of man. now that sounds like a scenario which could have been artistically retold as divine creation.

that is a possibility

[nareshseep]

If today a man decide to say that God told him that the universe was created.
Will soceity believe him? Will they say he is mental? and how is there a difference between now and ancient times? And if he decided to write his own book and form his own religion? Will they not say he is the antichrist?

No one knows how the universe was created, Mankind has been around for millions of years. My theory is that ever so often there is a natural disaster that wipes out the world and the human race has start over from scratch. Now imagine there is a great disaster say the megavolcano explodes and annihilates majority of the world. Leaving only a few persons scattered all over the world. Say it destroys all technology. Then generations after will not know about what existed before. It take will thousands of years before we can recreate the present infrastructure the world has, and most likely they will create different techologies. There are civilizations that we know existed in the past only because of thier records in stone. What about the civilizations that did not record in stone? Did they not exist? ie. Atlantis.

[megadoc1]

*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.

son you have no idea what you speak about, macro evolution is not yet proven!

what I know about it is irrelevant in making it the truth. Scientists have found empirical evidence that species evolve over periods of time to adapt to their environment. Fossils and DNA of many plant and animal species have been found to prove this: "The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight".

if there is such empirical evidence of what you believe to be the creation story then please show it here.

again duane you are describing micro evolution which have been proven, what about macro evolution ? are you saying because micro evolution was proven it means macro evolution is fact?

[megadoc1]

The word 'evolution' is used in the following contexts:

Stellar / Planetary Evolution - An explosion (the 'Big Bang') supplied non-living material and over billions of years, supposedly this material became organized into planets and stars

Cellular Evolution - At some point, non-living matter supposedly became living, forming cells that could reproduce

Evolution of living things - Supposedly, over time, living things appeared which included fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. Human beings are said to be the last to appear in this process. According to evolutionary theory, this change in living things was achieved using time, chance, natural selection ('survival of the fittest') and mutation (random changes in genetic code)

This evolutionary process is claimed to a natural random process which has taken place without any outside intelligence, plan or guiding force.

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself or has it always existed

a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” Think about that.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”11

Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."12

Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”13 The universe cannot have created itself!

b. The universe could NOT have always existed

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning.

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.

c. The universe WAS created

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created.

EVIDENCE 2: Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis." 8

So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!

EVIDENCE 3: The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record. These 'links' are conspicuous by their absence.

After over a hundred years of intensive research into the fossil record the 'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not based on the evidence of fossils." 2

EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory. Darwin’s own deductive reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.

Darwin said: "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." 3

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well.

There is no evidence (in the fossil record etc.) of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even an imaginary process can be thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!

EVIDENCE 5: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about."1

As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!

Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply. Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!

The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." 9

As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. …"7

Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can never take place.

EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.4 This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!

A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html



my question is, where people got the thought that evolution was proven?

[Razkal]

as a biology graduate. that is a pot of crock. everything you posted there.

that what you posted was what my class had a raucus laugh at three years ago in undergrad.

it is plagued with a fundamental ignorance about the basics of biology. i suggest, Concise Biology for CXC...take a small read and get familiar with the topic you are trying to debate.

Next friday at UWI is an open debate on this exact topic...grace us with your presence for the Q&A session please megadoc1. i'll PM you the details.

[Sky]

*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.

son you have no idea what you speak about, macro evolution is not yet proven!

what I know about it is irrelevant in making it the truth. Scientists have found empirical evidence that species evolve over periods of time to adapt to their environment. Fossils and DNA of many plant and animal species have been found to prove this: "The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight".

if there is such empirical evidence of what you believe to be the creation story then please show it here.

again duane you are describing micro evolution which have been proven, what about macro evolution ? are you saying because micro evolution was proven it means macro evolution is fact?

Lol I said the same thing Duane said.
Carbon Dating/Timeline = chronological order
And please look up the difference between macro and micro evolution. Sightless eyes or wings useless for flight is micro right? lulz. Watching feathers vanish of a species over time is micro right?

---------

[brainchild]

This is the 3rd thread about the same topic....we just keep masking it with different titles. Bottomline is we may never know.....unless there really is an afterlife and someone waiting there to explain it all with a nice powerpoint presentation or short film. We will speculate till the end of time, because long before us the ancient African tribes, Romans, Babylonians, Incans, Egyptians etc each had their own spin on how we got here and their "proof" to support these claims, several religious leaders have had visions and experiences of these different deities, does this make them all real? does it means some were faking it?...who can really prove them right or wrong?
One thing i'll agree with though is that we came from somewhere and who/whatever made us came from somewhere also....the true answer is infinite, because it goes as far back as if God came from somewhere where did that place come from, who created a being or beings of such vast power and where did those creators come from? and so on and so on.

[sMASH]

ah , thought about it.

when i say default, i meant for us muslims, and for the christians theirs would be the default. the stories of creation are part of these belief systems, and at, least with us, is either u take all of it, or none (some people may do things which are not in the religion, but that is not to say that they think it is right. they may not be as well learned or just plain harden, but it is not that they saying what they doin is according to what they supposed to be doin).

as part of the religion, we would believe that. but, we have no proof of it. the scientists (both religious and non religious) would go and observe the world, and make theories and what not. from these same information the religious people, or creationists would use to prove that there was no evolution.

but just saying that there is insufficient evidence to make evolution totally discovered, cannot mean that creationism is correct. all that means is that not all the information has come uncovered.
the bad thing is, we have no choice and knowledge as to what fossils have been preserved, and so, some things may not be able to ever be dis covered again, leaving a gap in the story.

there are some thing which does exist which tend to defy the evolution theory, like the explosion beetle in the video, posted earlier. all that means is that the path its predecessors took is not able to be observed, and not able to be understood by us.

in my opinion, creationists have very limited arguments to support creationism. they have some good points, but that is only because the whole story is unavailable, yet.

evolutionists have a very convincing story, and a lot of tangible evidence, (especially the mitochondrial dna). so if u have to go go with the better one in a side by side comparison, evolutionist would win out, because the only argument a creationist have is that there are some inconsistencies in the evolutionists work, which we have no control over.

i am pretty happy with god creating evolution, and big bang and what not.

i cannot prove that the story of creation in the qur'an is the actual story, but when compared to christianity's version, from a scientific stand point, it seems more realistic, but that is only comparing one to the other.

[d spike]

While I must say the quality of megadoc's posts has improved drastically from that of previous threads (admittedly, most of this is just quoted material on his part) he is yet to show that he can grasp opposing arguments. I greatly fear all this, including his attempts to show an understanding of rebuttal, is simply the result of his posting 'en grappe' from a book he is reading. I, for one, am glad... for it means that he is actually finding time to read something other than the KJV (If one must limit one's biblical experience to one translation, then this has to be one of the poorest choices one can make, as far as translation is concerned - the archaic English just adds to the problem.)
A book about Creationism versus Evolution written by a Creationist is certainly going to be heavily biased... containing only poorly explained (or downright wrong) versions of evolutionary arguments.

What is clear in reading megadoc's posts, is he is still unable to bring himself to understand an opposing point of view - his leather blinkers are still on...

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? The second idea is the simplest solution that fits the data.

"People are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a reality also. Evolutionists maintain that over long periods of time small-scale change accumulate in such a way as to generate new and more complex organisms... This is sheer illusion, for there is no scientific evidence whatever to support the occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale. In spite of all the artificial breeding which has been done, and all the controlled efforts to modify fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human being remain human beings."

Which part of "long periods of time" is not being understood here? We aren't talking about 25 or 50 years here. "artificial breeding which has been done, and all the controlled efforts" ?????? We are talking about the change brought about over millions of years!
The basis of such arguments goes beyond belief in the veracity in a document written in the last 10,000 years (and that figure is greatly exaggerated). The only proof lies in material evidence that actually spans such a fantastic amount of time - fossils, for example.
The use by Creationists of the lack of missing evidence to support evolutionary argument as major evidence that their argument is right, is a very poor choice.
How many Tyrannosaurus rex fossils have been found? 3? 10? 22? By that line of thinking, that's how many of that species existed. Their own argument of dinosaurs and people co-existing is not supported by fossilized evidence.

Megadoc refuses to even attempt understanding of the arguments on the other side of his fence... no one is asking him to AGREE, but just to see their point... but in his view, the latter is the former - that's fundamentalism for you! Stick your fingers in your ears, and shout what you want to say louder than the voices around you, drowning out all else.

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

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

Mamoo, you're talking about a fellow who only pays attention to part of the scriptures he claims to follow - and ignores the other parts. What would you expect of him where science is concerned, a field he used to sneer at?
He will quote anyone who agrees with him, be they mathematician or mad prophet.

To conclude, megadoc hasn't changed. He has just found a book written by someone who shares his own way of dealing with arguments - minus the incoherent ranting.

look up d spike

I see the chandelier... what about it?

He still hasn't told me what's wrong with my chandelier...

[mr. mindz]

food for thought...

[d spike]

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 !

fcuk you...

Soundwave, Optimus Prime is gonna go all armageddon on yo' ass...

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself or has it always existed

EVIDENCE 2: Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things


EVIDENCE 3: The Missing Links are Still Missing

EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

EVIDENCE 5: The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

http://www.changinglivesonline.org/evolution.html

my question is, where people got the thought that evolution was proven?

LOL hahahahahahahaha

and look which website he took it from!!!!

megadoc1 yuh really have on blinkers yes.

Just one of numerous methods discovered for life arising from inorganic material such as carbon and chemicals
abiogenesis
In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.

[Strauss]

^ the bible and the qu'ran both have relatively the same account of the creation. Both have the garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and the serpent, there are a few small differences. Both religions however believe only their exact version is correct.

They both agree however that the Hindu creation story is incorrect.
On what grounds?

The Hindu creation story is a metaphor of the same thing the bible and quran has... all start with the "word".

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ the bible and the qu'ran both have relatively the same account of the creation. Both have the garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and the serpent, there are a few small differences. Both religions however believe only their exact version is correct.

They both agree however that the Hindu creation story is incorrect.
On what grounds?

The Hindu creation story is a metaphor of the same thing the bible and quran has... all start with the "word".

The Hindu creation story has 6 days and the Sabbath, Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit and the serpent?

[mamoo_pagal]

^ the bible and the qu'ran both have relatively the same account of the creation. Both have the garden of Eden and Adam and Eve and the serpent, there are a few small differences. Both religions however believe only their exact version is correct.

They both agree however that the Hindu creation story is incorrect.
On what grounds?

The Hindu creation story is a metaphor of the same thing the bible and quran has... all start with the "word".

the say that word is om (Aumn).............doesn't that sound like an echo of an explosion........probably a big explosion

[megadoc1]

for it means that he is actually finding time to read something other than the KJV (If one must limit one's biblical experience to one translation, then this has to be one of the poorest choices one can make as far as translation is concerned - the archaic English just adds to the problem.)

actually I am using a Holman Cristian standard bible (HCSB) ...great stuff yo!

To conclude, megadoc hasn't changed. He has just found a book written by someone who shares his own way of dealing with arguments - minus the incoherent ranting.

there such a book around? .... ok ok I am not reading any book concerning creation or evolution,please don't be misled into thinking so, honestly I am not really interested in all of that stuff.
I was merely showing up most of the people on here,
who are always trying to declare evolution as fact and then use it to argue against religion, which actually is a "faith thing" I just think they need alot more faith to believe in such
something that isn't proven to be fact, just as the religious folks do.
It is clear that none of them have any proof !!
most of them can't even explain it (as they expect the religious ones to do)
but yet you see them taunting the religious folks with what they think is true.
Its all a matter of faith !! that's all I am saying, something these fellers will deny but look thru any religious ched on tuner and bet your butt you will see one of them talking
down religion with science....lol
and if you look at this ched you will see that I tried staying clear of religion
but look where the "scientific" ones went.......against the bible?
at the end of the day none of us knows but
we can be assured that all of us here will know if there is a God or not before evolution can be proven..
....oh and look at the level of hypocrisy coming from the Islamic circles....lol
what a shame
those guys will bend to fit in any shaped hole

Just one of numerous methods discovered for life arising from inorganic material such as carbon and chemicals
abiogenesis
In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how biological life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose. Most amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments that involved simulating some of the conditions of the early Earth in a laboratory.

looks good written down, Got any proof??? can I see it?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

actually I am using a Holman Cristian standard bible (HCSB) ...great stuff yo!

I know a guy named Cristian. If you meant Christian, what is the reason for using the HCSB over the KJV and others?

looks good written down, Got any proof??? can I see it?

same could be said of the things you believe in

Google abiogenesis or biopoesis - you will find alot of proof

keep in mind that biopoesis is NOT evolution and the big bang is NOT evolution.
They are not the same.

[Sky]

I was merely showing up most of the people on here,
who are always trying to declare evolution as fact and then use it to argue against religion, which actually is a "faith thing" I just think they need alot more faith to believe in such
something that isn't proven to be fact, just as the religious folks do.

That's the thing there. This forum has one self proclaimed atheist as far as I've seen. MG Man. Everyone else deals with facts. You have a theory, you set out to prove it. When it's proven it becomes a fact. But Christians feel threatened by these found facts because to them it contradicts their faith system, While scientists set out to prove these facts just for the sake of having knowledge.
You know what happens to a scientist when his theory is proven wrong? He goes home and tomorrow's another day. Know what happens to a Christian when he feels like what he believes is wrong? His life and way of living is over. His promise of the afterlife is over.
Scientists have nothing against any religion. They just believe what they do. They also live and let live, something I've never heard of any religion doing.

You wanna talk about throwing words and little boys, but you set out to do the same thing in this thread, show people up. And you'll ignore me because I have a different belief from you right? Nah don't take me seriously, then talk about maturity. And still you failed because of your "scientific sources". You may not agree with my religion, but I don't need all those arguments to support my belief
D Spike never renounced Christianity, or questioned it for that matter. He refined the belief with knowledge. But you prefer the ignorant way, so you call him a demon.
You have a very long way to go, and you haven't even started the journey. You just put on the sandals and boast about the journey, while turning your nose up at others.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ fundamentalists of most, if not all, religions act this way as well.

[nareshseep]

Pastafarianism is the way!!

http://www.venganza.org/about/

[sMASH]

"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

there is no other god but the one god.. atheism, but one further. hmmn

[turbohead]

how come when something bad happen to an atheist/evolutionist they quick to call out 'oh God' and when something good befalls they thank themselves?