If u guys have proof that this has been disputed u can show me references and links or if u urselves have done experiments to debunk what I'm about to write u tell me...

But here it goes...


Myth 1::::. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19
The facts::::. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?
In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.
Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

If u guys have proof that this has been disputed u can show me references and links or if u urselves have done experiments to debunk what I'm about to write u tell me...

But here it goes...


Myth 1::::. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19
The facts::::. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?
In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.
Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

logicboy:



Stop and think. You accept all other scientific theories but you stop at evolution because it debunks the bible. Is this not proof that christianity makes you throw away common sense?

Do you reject germ theory? How do you know about germs? It was not until the 19th century that the common man knew what germs were.

Evolution is d most stupid of beliefs if u ask me....

Other scientific findings are backed up with proof....

But evolution till today is still a myth..

Even core evolutionist are confused....

They'v been going in circles not knowing what there theory means......

They also put faith in a theory that they themselves have to wait for millions of years to see it manifest......

I appreciate science.....

But there r boundaries..

We can't just take in everytin becos so called intellects said it.....

And all these researches are done not to know more about creation,its just to stubbornly prove there is no God.....

enough has been said! let him/her show up.

ijawkid: If u guys have proof that this has been disputed u can show me references and links or if u urselves have done experiments to debunk what I'm about to write u tell me...

But here it goes...


Myth 1::::. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species. The teaching of macroevolution is built on the claim that mutations—random changes in the genetic code of plants and animals—can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals.19
The facts::::. Many characteristics of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. But do mutations really produce entirely new species? What has a century of study in the field of genetic research revealed?
In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany. Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.
Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability.”
So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”22
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?

You even look more foolish when you copy and paste nonsense. You went to a pseudo-scientific website to copy this nonsense. You were foolish enough to believe that you copied something that made sense because it had words like "mutation" and "genome".


1) The second sentence is quite misleading so that ignoramuses like you can misunderstand the role of mutation in evolution. Mutation is not the only process or mechanism necessary for evolution. The main driving force of evolution is natural selection, which occurs when the environment picks for the organism which variations are useful by killing off those who haven't got them. Mutations are the source of these variations.

2) Evolution takes place over a period of time. Definitely mutations over a longer period of time would have more drastic changes than one in na short period of time.


3) "mutation breeding" is an entirely different concept which is quite successful;

Mutation breeding is the process of exposing seeds to chemicals or radiation in order to generate mutants with desirable traits to be bred with other cultivars. Plants created using mutagenesis are sometimes called mutagenic plants or mutagenic seeds. From 1930–2004 more than 2250 mutagenic plant varietals have been released that have been derived either as direct mutants (70%) or from their progenie (30%).[1] Crop plants account for 75% of released mutagenic species with the remaining 25% ornamentals or decorative plants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding


4) Your copy and paste seems to ignore that there are many genetically modified crops and animals. These animals and pland different traits from their original ancestors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Genetically_modified_crops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Genetically_modified_animals

@ logicboy

@ Benodic and DeepSight.
Two of you have problems. You can not
prove God. Both of you are not concerned
whether God is real or not. You prefer to
remain in ignorance.

i have proved the existence of God to myself. I do not have to prove it to you because i simply can't. Why? Because the prove of God's existence is a subjective experience. Not an objective one and not one you can do in a scientist lab. God is not a lab rat you can dissect with a surgical blade

Logical arguments against God;
1) Evolution; Evolution debunks the story
that man was created. The God of
Christianity/Judaism/Islam debunked.
Furthermore, women are not made from
man's rib. That would make Adam to be
the parent of Eve (clone of Adam).
Inbreeding!

you have only looked at the creation versions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. So let me fill you up on the ECKANKAR version.

From our point of view evolution is a fact and actually took place over millions of years starting from unicellular organisms and culminating in man. What christians do not know is that the bible story of creation is actually a depicting of evolution.

their confusion arises from the fact that they are looking at the 6 days of creation as if it is equivalent to 6 days of earth time while in reality a cosmic day is more than 5 million years of earth time. So going through the story in genesis with cosmic time in mind you will actually see how evolution weaves through it from plants to animals to man over millions of years of earth time.

and the story of adam and eve of course is an allegory the meaning of which i will not go into here. So evolution is a fact. It is just unfortunate that christians interpreted what was written in genesis literally.

2) Human suffering; If God wills
everything, was it God's will for our
Nigerian forefathers to be slaves to
christian Europeans? Can God claim
ignorance to the suffering of men? People
getting whipped, mutilated and Molested?
Can God claim that he gave freewill to
man when he destroyed Sodom and
Gommorah for immorality? Transatlantic
slave masters were never punished,
rather, some of the slave masters
recieved compensation while most
enjoyed the profit of cheap labour.

human suffering is a product of man's inability to learn love. It has nothing to do with God. God has only one will and that is that Soul will grow to maturity and learn how to love and then come back home to It.

Every action you see on earth today has causes set in past lives that put it in motion. So there is no injustice in the system. Every soul gets its just rewards. What you sow is what you reap. If you do not reap it in a particular life time then you will reincarnate and face the consequences in a later lifetime.
By that time the soul would have forgotten what transpired in a previous lifetime

3) Why is your own God real? People
believed that Zeus is God. People believe
that Allah is God. People believe that Sat
Nam (Sikh God) is the real God. Are you
not an atheist towards the other Gods?
You have just as much proof for your
God as the rest of them.
There are more but lets stop here for
now.

the story of the elephant and the 6 blind men best depicts the reality of God and what It is like. Someone who does not even know the make up of his own nature can never have an inkling of what God is like.
Problems usually arise when the person who felt the tail of the elephant and claimed that the elephant is like a snake starts fighting the others who have different claims according to the part of the elephant they touched.

What makes my God real? Is because i have actually had experiences that showed me Its reality. Most people that fight over the issue of God actually have not had this experience. Why do i say so. It is because it is a life changing experience that clears all the doubts and all the arguments away like filthy rags and you will come to realize that we are all one and that there is no need for divisions, prejudices and bias.

You only strive to give back the love you receive from God to others as well.

V_Official®:
you were born, unless it's a mistake of nature...

That's no logical proof of anything.

You were born and that's just one of the random occurences that happen in nature. At the moment of your conception, your father could have stopped due to a random occurence which stopped the sexual activity and you wouldn't exist. Your existence is not a proof of god nor is it anything special.

@Benodic...I like this part - "God is not a Lab Rat that you can dissect" no one says he is - just that at least if your (GOD) overwhelming influence can be seen beyond the known universe, how come you can't even lend some credence as to it being yours in the first place. The ever so permeating Universal Consciousness that is "Everything" eerily happens to unreachable to Man since the dawn of time (if there ever was such a phenomena). I agree, given the individualistic experience of this Universal Consciousness, one cannot completely explain it to others - it is a personal experience devoid of any scientific venture, ranking high in the realms of other deistic religious themes(pardon the inference from religion)

The only proof i have is that
The order in which Moses wrote that the world was created
was the order in which Darwin has found that that his 'evolution' occured.

Everything started from the sea. Then to primates. Then to amphibians. Then to mammals. Then to man.

Just as Moses has predicted. Man was the last too! And after man, no other 'evolution' has occurred since homo sapiense.
All the 'man' that has been on this planet has been homo sapiens.
Just as Moses wrote, Adam and Eve was in the garden and fed from fruits all year. They also wondered about naked and named all things.
Which is the basic characteristics of apes. But when knowledge came upon them they became consious of their unclothedness and sew clothes for themselves.
They also started farming and tilling the soil. This is the Characteristics of man.
Just as poor Darwin later found out. Apes were here before man.

King Solomon also accurately described the water cycle in his proverbs.

There are many things Darwin's theory couldn't explain too. It was filled with loop holes.
For instance, why did dinosaurs die out? The simplest one is
The egg or the Chicken which came first?
According to the bible, animals where created first. But Darwin's theory failed in this.

benodic:

@ logicboy



i have proved the existence of God to myself. I do not have to prove it to you because i simply can't. Why? Because the prove of God's existence is a subjective experience. Not an objective one and not one you can do in a scientist lab. God is not a lab rat you can dissect with a surgical blade

My 4 year old nephew can make the same argument; the toothfairy is a subjective experience, only children that believe in him and can grow back their teeth can see or experience him.


I can also make the same argument for the flying spaghetti monster; only those who know the gospel of pasta can understand and feel the Spaghetti monster. Religion of pastafarians. It is subjective

benodic:
you have only looked at the creation versions of christianity, judaism and islam. So let me fill you up on the ECKANKAR version.

From our point of view evolution is a fact and actually took place over millions of years starting from unicellular organisms and culminating in man. What christians do not know is that the bible story of creation is actually a depicting of evolution.

their confusion arises from the fact that they are looking at the 6 days of creation as if it is equivalent to 6 days of earth time while in reality a cosmic day is more than 5 million years of earth time. So going through the story in genesis with cosmic time in mind you will actually see how evolution weaves through it from plants to animals to man over millions of years of earth time.

and the story of adam and eve of course is an allegory the meaning of which i will not go into here. So evolution is a fact. It is just unfortunate that christian interpreted what was written in genesis literally.

Genesis is pure rubbish. You can try and distance yourself from christian creationism but as long as you believe that God is the creator, you are virtually in the same boat with them.

Evolution would make God look very stupid; in order to create human beings, God created unicellular organisms and then was chilling with other animals that did not have speech or advanced thinking capabilities until the first humans came. BS! Rubbish

benodic:
human suffering is a product of man's inability to learn love. It has nothing to do with God. God has only one will and that is that Soul will grow to maturity and learn how to love and then come back home to It.

Your God is quite useless then if he does not interfere with human actions. Quite different from the God in the bible. He has no effect on my mortal life then.

benodic:
[b]Every action you see on earth today has causes set in past lives that put it in motion. So there is no injustice in the system. Every soul gets its just rewards. W[/b]hat you sow is what you reap. If you do not reap it in a particular life time then you will reincarnate and face the consequences in a later lifetime.
By that time the soul would have forgetting what transpired in a previous lifetime

So, people that were slaves committed sins in their past lives? You're quite mad. I should have known.

Please, let me come to your house to shoot you and your family and then using your logic, I will claim that you people deserved it as a result of sins or actions in your past life

benodic:
the story of the elephant and the 6 blind men best depicts the reality of God and what It is like. Someone who does not even know the make up of his own nature can never have an inkling of what God is like.
Problems usually arise when the person who felt the tail of the elephant and claimed that the elephant is like a snake starts fighting the others who have different claims according to the part of the elephant they touched.

What makes my God real? Is because i have actually had experiences that showed me Its reality. Most people that fight over the issue of God actually have not had this experience. Why do i say so. It is because it is a life changing experience that clears all the doubts and all the arguments away like filthy rags and you will come to realize that we are all one and that there is no need for divisions, prejudices and bias.

You only strive to give back the love you receive from God to others as well.

The story of the blind men and the elephant only shows that what is beyond our senses will remain largely unknown.

Martian:

That's no logical proof of anything.

You were born and that's just one of the random occurences that happen in nature. At the moment of your conception, your father could have stopped due to a random occurence which stopped the sexual activity and you wouldn't exist. Your existence is not a proof of god nor is it anything special.

Of course!!!
it's simply sensible... if your birth is not a proof of God's existence then... i know WHAT kind of person you are. (you definitely dunno see any future for youself or think/ expect anything as whatever you experience is just a random occurence)

@martian...as you are JUST A RANDOM OCCURRENCE, you can as well pause everything you've led till date so as to prepare for your death... as it can RANDOMLY OCCUR IN THE NEXT SECOND. I wish you well after life!!

@ logicboy

nice one. it is really refreshing seeing another point of view apart from what you usually get from those in orthodox religions. it is really an eye opener to see how you analyze issues.
but really there is no need for insults or name calling. lets just air our views like mature individuals and allow others to air theirs even if their opinions or views may sound preposterous or stupid to you. always bear in mind that no body knows it all. we are only sharing the bits of knowledge that we have. i hope we do not become like the 6 blind men and start fighting and abusing each other.

benodic: @ logicboy

nice one. it is really refreshing seeing another point of view apart from what you usually get from those in orthodox religions. it is really an eye opener to see how you analyze issues.
but really there is no need for insults or name calling. lets just air our views like mature individuals and allow others to air theirs even if their opinions or views may sound preposterous or stupid to you. always bear in mind that no body knows it all. we are only sharing the bits of knowledge that we have. i hope we do not become like the 6 blind men and start fighting and abusing each other.

Okay, sorry then!

And God said, two manners of men shall come from ur womb. One shall be greater than the other and the elder shall serve the younger. So even before jacob and esau were born, God already destined their life. So esau selling his birthright for a pot of porridge was preordained. Makes no sense.
God hardened pharaoh's heart and at the same time sent moses to pharaoh to free d israelites. It sounds like sending ur messenger to deliver a message and thereafter calling the the other party not to accept the message. Makes no sense. On and on a lot of things makes no sense about the God of genesis!

@logicboy

Okay, sorry then!

appology duely accepted.

Okay then, lets explore your opinion about the origin of life.
Like i said earlier, i accept the concept of Evolution. The difference is that i accept that the Spirit of God set the process in motion and over millions of years the human form evolved.
Now i want to know your own opinion on the origin of evolution. How did the process start or what initiated it.

Thanks

Moderrator: An atheist tried to "open" my eyes yesterday during an arguement by challenging me to provide evidence that God exists.
The only proof i had was a miracle i had witnessed in the past. But he wouldn't believe that because i didn't have the evidence with me there.
So how can i prove in such cases that God exists? Taking into account that nearly all atheists are very logical in reasoning and tend to be "intelligent".

SOURCE: http:///PZRNt
You can also ask your own anonymous questions there.

I find atheist questions to proive God's existence as fraudulent. They actually intend ytou to prove what is infact a deduction. It's like someone asking me to prove 1+1=2. Nevertheless, when this question is asked I usually state that God is inferred from Nature and that Nature xould not possibly have been self-created since it had a beginning.

@Martian
Sind Sie Deutscher? oder Nigeria in Deutschland geboren? oder einfach nur liebe die deutsche Art und Weise?
Ich lese Deutsch auf Ihrem Profil

This post has gone to funny places with funny creationist ideas..

@Ijawkid

I see you accusing us of simply taking what the white man tells us and not thinking. I guess it was a black man that found Christianity and brought it to the rest of the world abi? You guys seem to think normally in everything else but when it comes to religion and crucial questions, you kinda loose it.

And there you sit behind a computer sending these posts and still having the massive pair of balls to tell me Science is only research of one man and no definite proof. if it is, then everything the scientific revolution has brought us wont be true. Car , air-conditioning, Aeroplane, light bulb, Electricity, the microphone and speakers used in your churches, ....... basically everything that makes your world a better place.

what has god brought for us? WAR, pointless hatred, inequality, Criminals (under the guise of "pastor" so much more..

The difference with what we believe and what you believe is that we are being presented by facts and evidence and we can reason along those lines to come around the same conclusion. In your situation you are only given "the truth" and you have to take it for what its worth. NO questions asked!! that's very smart innit?



For Uyi, I can prove that 1+1 = 2.. One orange + one Orange = ? you don't need science for this do you


there's what is known as laws of nature.


God is nothing but a figment of man imagination. Don't believe me? Look at all the religion on earth!!! Silly

V_Official®:
@Martian
Sind Sie Deutscher? oder Nigeria in Deutschland geboren? oder einfach nur liebe die deutsche Art und Weise?
Ich lese Deutsch auf Ihrem Profil

No, I just like the idea of Nietszche's ubermensch. Ive only passed through germany throough an airport.

This is a good explanation.
Zarathustra proclaims the Übermensch to be the meaning of the earth and admonishes his audience to ignore those who promise other-worldly hopes in order to draw them away from the earth.[3][4] The turn away from the earth is prompted, he says, by a dissatisfaction with life, [b]a dissatisfaction that causes one to create another world in which those who made one unhappy in this life are tormented. [/b]The Übermensch is not driven into other worlds away from this one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

In regards to the bold, christians are fond of doing this by invoking hell......the Übermensch just laughs at their silly threats.

k.. dunno feel like talkn bout the topic no more. many Germans here are atheist so... i do this like almost every day

V_Official®:
k.. dunno feel like talkn bout the topic no more. many Germans here are atheist so... i do this like almost every day

I live in southern U.S with all these crazy bible people. Maybe I need to move to Germany soon I'm done with stuff..............hmmm I just might...for a year or two, I kinda love the crazy bible people

Martian:

I live in southern U.S with all these crazy bible people. Maybe I need to move to Germany soon I'm done with stuff..............hmmm I just might...for a year or two, I kinda love the crazy bible people

Oops!!!
you've probably met all but one
i'm soooooo sane Germany will welcome you whenever you feel like coming.

The atheist wants to SEE God to believe He exists, which is impossible. So why try to prove anything? I personally believe in a CREATOR cause of the wonders of nature. For my first degree, i designed a reactor to carry out a reversible chemical process to produce just one substance. I know what i went through calculating heaven and earth to get it right and not design something that will blow up everyone's face. At the same time i was thinking...the earth is the biggest reactor, so many reactions taking place simultenously and yet it has not exploded us to extinction. How possible is it that it was not designed?? The reactor i designed does not know i did it, doesn't change the fact that i did. I am convinced there is a creator, if u believe there's not, that's up to you!

tgirl1986: The atheist wants to SEE God to believe He exists, which is impossible. So why try to prove anything? I personally believe in a CREATOR cause of the wonders of nature. For my first degree, i designed a reactor to carry out a reversible chemical process to produce just one substance. I know what i went through calculating heaven and earth to get it right and not design something that will blow up everyone's face. At the same time i was thinking...the earth is the biggest reactor, so many reactions taking place simultenously and yet it has not exploded us to extinction. How possible is it that it was not designed?? The reactor i designed does not know i did it, doesn't change the fact that i did. I am convinced there is a creator, if u believe there's not, that's up to you!

Epic Fail

The earth will explode. The sun will blow it up.


What makes you think the earth is perfectly created? The eartquakes, tsunamis, extinct animals, the fact that 70% of the earth is water (98% of that is salt water) and the fact that the earth is a pin compared to the larger universe do not convince you that if there was na creator, he was quite erratic?

logicboy:
Epic Fail
The earth will explode. The sun will blow it up.
What makes you think the earth is perfectly created? The eartquakes, tsunamis, extinct animals, the fact that 70% of the earth is water (98% of that is salt water) and the fact that the earth is a pin compared to the larger universe do not convince you that if there was na creator, he was quite erratic?

You're doing it wrong Logicboy. When you answer a post as ridiculously inane as tgirl1986s, you reply by saying, "yes, I have also calculated the chances of the earth blowing up everyones' face, and it will happen soon as North Korea invades America in 3145 and install a capicommusocialism regime headed by Kin Jung un the VII"

Martian:

You're doing it wrong Logicboy. When you answer a post as ridiculously inane as tgirl1986s, you reply by saying, "yes, I have also calculated the chances of the earth blowing up everyones' face, and it will happen soon as North Korea invades America in 3145 and install a capicommusocialism regime headed by Kin Jung un the VII"

LMAO

Martian:

You're doing it wrong Logicboy. When you answer a post as ridiculously inane as tgirl1986s, you reply by saying, "yes, I have also calculated the chances of the earth blowing up everyones' face, and it will happen soon as North Korea invades America in 3145 and install a capicommusocialism regime headed by Kin Jung un the VII"

lol..funny..if u say the earth will explode by the hands of crazy men, thats up to you.. The fact that it hasn't exploded yet, still shows that it was designed well from the onset.

tgirl1986:
lol..funny..if u say the earth will explode by the hands of crazy men, thats up to you.. The fact that it hasn't exploded yet, still shows that it was designed well from the onset.

Come on love.. you're way too clever for a comment like that

It will explode, either by the hands of men or by nature itself. when our sun goes into supernova, we'll go with it. that is if we haven't evolved into much smarter beings and warped ourselves to another planet.

tgirl1986: The atheist wants to SEE God to believe He exists, which is impossible. So why try to prove anything? I personally believe in a CREATOR cause of the wonders of nature. For my first degree, i designed a reactor to carry out a reversible chemical process to produce just one substance. I know what i went through calculating heaven and earth to get it right and not design something that will blow up everyone's face. At the same time i was thinking...the earth is the biggest reactor, so many reactions taking place simultenously and yet it has not exploded us to extinction. How possible is it that it was not designed?? The reactor i designed does not know i did it, doesn't change the fact that i did. I am convinced there is a creator, if u believe there's not, that's up to you!

If so, it then implies that there is a prevalent overarching structure of laws which entities within it must abide by to function. For example cars follow the principles of motion, gravity etc in order to achieve what the designer seeks.

One can call such structure the Universe or self existent Being (any fancy name).

On this issue of d existance of God i just cant pass it bye.
Its rether unfortunate what greedy human has done to christian religion, teaching philosophies of men as doctrine teaching in effect doctrine off the bible, with dat d efficacy of what is contain in d bible is lost to most people.

Though no man at any time has ever seen God but from things seen and from creation we can use it to prove d existance of God. I marvel at my brain as a circuit designer and what i can do with it dat i cant even imagine thinking it came by chance, but dat is relative since all brains dont perform in d same level, 4 those, chance? Maybe.

Some part of d bible is 3500yrs old,
and i found some info contain therein that got me asking my self a lot of question.
Isaiah 40:22 3000yrs old, Job 26:7 3500yrs old, Deuteronomy 23:13 3500yrs old.
If 3000 yrs ago Isaiah leaving in tent on a desert with enemies all around was able to be spot on in passing terms give d shape of d earth as a circle when well known philosophers got it wrong? i cant help but ask how did he come to know dat? We know how recent that knowledge is in secular quarters.
Isaiah said it was God who ask him to write what he wrote so if he was ask to prove or give reason why he wrote dat d earth is a circle he will have none but dat God ask him to write.
Same also with Job 3500yrs ago dat said dat d "earth is hanging on nothing" suspended, if i was with him den i would have said dat he is insane cause dat statement defies d law of gravity but how right he was 3500yrs ago,
ofcouse he did not need to prove anything since he said he was inspired, though i know he would have been unable to prove anything since such knowledge was beyound human knowledge then.

I dont believe dat dis fact contain in d bible came by chance but that though human den did not know > THERE EXIST ONE THAT KNOWS. Since such knowlegde was above human 3500yrs and they said God told them what to write, that means >God EXIST.
How then did they come to have such knowledge? See also laws on hygiene meant to protect from bacterial infection when human knew nothing about bacterial transmission then. The bible is so replicated with such info, water circle galaxies, etc dat i wish i had started earlier.

Most of what is use as a basis for argument in dis forum are realy not base on what d bible teach but rether slogans that this church owners carry. D bible has realy been misrepresented and d foolishness in that is seen in forum like dis where it is use against those misquoting d bible.
D bible does not need assistance from human knowledge to defend itself. Infact, when science get it right as a fact it always rhyms with the bible. Note, d bible is not a science text book, but all this on the line of describing God.

Devid, bible writer who also claim to be inspired wrote that in the belly of his mother (womb) he was screen, and that all his body parts details where down in writings, that in a wanderful way he was made by God befor be was born.
If scientist had not got DNA sorted out rightly, how would we have come to know that by inspiration david got it rightly described 3000yrs ago in the psalms? (a bible book)

There is the understanding that the univers is govern by laws,
My Quest is, who put those laws in place?

If the laws came by chance then that makes "chance" superior to the laws, if that is the case why has chance allowed the law it put in place to thrive those far? And has not eroded it? Or has chance develope an intelligence of its own? As to know when to stop?

I had expected that chance should continue being at work as it is blind, or is it not, did it know when to retire?
If chance has so developed an intelligence and know when to stop as not to erode the law it put in place, and it is said where there is intelligence then there is a mind and where there is a mind there is a person (brain) are we then saying that chance is a person?

^^^ ppl like you tend to presume a void world/arena beforeits being filled up.

I will pose the question: why is there something rather than nothing.

In my answer, I dismiss nothing as being unproductive, therefore with the presence of something/things now, there was always something and things. The laws present today are not created or caused. The universe is not created either. Everything present now had always existed either in potential or actuality.