[$threadinfo[title]]

[sk8bloke22]

u say that as u hav been given a false sense of security. thats wat religion. flase consciousness. how do u know that ur love for Allah isnt just love for thin air. u said in an earlier post that u had some experience in a dream or wateva. u dont think that can be explained. i hav had dreams about rollerblading (i love the sport, since i was 13), and thats sad, hehe, but doesnt mean rollerblading is everything to life. its nothing, its minute, its tiny, life is hwo u make it. how u perceive it. if Marx was right about class conflict, then surely u must make the best of wat uve got. enjoy life to how u want. aand hav complete control. ive seen enuff religious propaganda in my time. and dont say that islam has no propaganda in it. every religion, belief systen uses propaganda. which is why nothing can be trusted. but u dont wanna live ur life without trust. so just live ur life. enjoy. dont be sheep in society.

[RPGlover12]

i was raised in amuslim family
but i wasn't i didn't get convinced untill when iw as 7 when i read the quran

[Reznor007]

Originally posted by RPGlover12

ok u want an answer for who created god
When I first heard this question, I straightaway con*fessed again ‘and ........................

Basically that long, winded reply is saying "don't question it...just believe it".

It is not God who needs ‘causes and effects’ to create; rather it is we who need ‘causes and effects’ to understand what He has created.

That right there says alot. It's going for the "humans aren't smart enough to understand it" angle...well, I don't buy it. I like the whole "guilty until proven innocent" idea that courts use, in other words, it didn't happen unless you can proove it.

[RPGlover12]

ok here is another
All of the creatures from particles to stars are each a clear proof for the necessary existence of the Necessarily Existent Being, the Absolutely Powerful One. Each link in the chain of the creation is a decisive evidence for His Unity. Among the numerous arguments which the Quran sets forth for the attention of all people, particularly in verses like,

If you ask them who has created the heavens and the earth, they will certainly say: God. (39:38)

Among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colors. (30:22)

it presents the creation of the heavens and the earth as an evident proof for God’s existence and Unity. A conscious man who considers the creation of the heavens and the earth will be compelled to confirm the existence of the Majestic Creator and when asked who their creator is, he will answer: God.

The Quran rejects any kind of partnership with God in the whole of the universe, from the stars and heavens down to particles. It means:

(Since like a human being the universe is an organism all parts of which work together and are interrelated with one another), the Absolutely Powerful One, Who has created the heavens and the earth in such perfect order, must be holding in His grasp of Power the solar system which is an amazing system.

Since that absolutely All-Powerful One holds the sun together with its planets in His grasp of Power, managing it and regulating its movements, the earth, which is a part of the solar system, moving in orbit round the sun, must be in His grasp of Power and management. Since the earth is in His grasp of Power and management, evidently, all of the creatures, which are created on it as its fruits and may be regarded as the goal of its existence, are in His grasp of Lordship (raising, administering and sustaining). Since all of the creatures, which are spread one by one or group by group successively over the whole face of the earth, and after adorning it for some time, are replaced by new ones, filling and then emptying the earth in a continuous cycle, are in His grasp of Power and Knowledge and are managed and arranged according to the measure of His Justice and Wisdom, then certainly, all the individual members of their species, which are each a well-designed and perfectly formed miniature of the universe, a pattern or specimen of its species, and a tiny index of the book of the universe, are in His grasp of Lordship, invention, raising and management. Since each living being is in His grasp of management and upbringing, then certainly the cells and blood corpuscles, and the limbs and nerves, which form the body of that living being, are under His command and at His disposal, and they move according to His laws. Lastly, the particles or atoms, which are essential building blocks constituting all those creatures and their parts and the means for their design and formation, will mostly certainly and necessarily be in His grasp of Power and in the sphere of His Knowledge, and will be moving most regularly and performing perfect duties by His command, permission and strength.

Since every particle moves and functions by His law, permission and command, certainly it is by His Knowledge and Wisdom that the face of each individual has special marks to distinguish that one from the others and like the faces, the sounds and tongues are all different from one another. Consider this verse which, in mentioning only the first and most universal link and the last and most individualized one, points to this chain of creation and the series of His signs in creation:

Among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colors. Indeed, in this are signs for those who know. (30:22)

Now we say: O representative of the people who associate partners with God! These are evidences as strong as the chains of creation, which point to an Absolutely Powerful One, and prove His Unity.

Since the creation of the heavens and the earth demonstrates an All-Powerful Maker and His boundless and infinitely perfect Power, most certainly He will be absolutely independent of partners. That is, He does not need partners in any way. While He has no need for them, why on earth do you follow this dark way of associating partners with Him? As He has no partners in His Divinity, so also any kind of partnership in His Lordship and creativity is impossible. For the Power of the Maker of the universe and the earth is boundless and infinitely perfect, before which the big or small, the universal or particular, the whole or the part, are equal. Supposing there were a partner, then this would require that a limited power should defeat boundless and infinitely perfect power or put a limit to it and infect it with incapacity. This is the most unreasonable of impossibilities and the most manifest inconceivability.

While there is no need for partners and the existence of any is inconceivable, it is merely a forced and arbitrary judgment to claim partnership with God. That is, since there is no justification whatever, either logical or reasonable or practical, for associating partners with God, it is a mere, insubstantial claim to make such a nonsensical assertion

[Reznor007]

Originally posted by RPGlover12
i was raised in amuslim family
but i wasn't i didn't get convinced untill when iw as 7 when i read the quran

Do you will believe in Santa Clause, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, and other such things? No? Well, your typical 7 year old does, that's how easy it is to get people to believe things when they are young.

[RPGlover12]

well
then why i wasn't convinced with the bible that much as much as i convinced with the quran

[Reznor007]

Originally posted by RPGlover12
ok here is another


Well, that's false. If god is in complete control of everything, than how can someone kill another person? Murder is a sin right? But wait...if you say a demon/devil possesed someone, that falsifies that also because if a demon is in control of someone, god is not in control, thus making him no longer omnipotent if control can be taken from him.

[Reznor007]

Originally posted by RPGlover12
well
then why i wasn't convinced with the bible that much as much as i convinced with the quran

Because you were raised in a muslim family. You had the general muslim ideas and beliefs in your head, even if you didn't fullly believe it, so getting something else like that you are easy to reject. When reading the quaran you found something that fit the ideas that your family gave you, so you believed it.

[RPGlover12]

Originally posted by Reznor007


Well, that's false. If god is in complete control of everything, than how can someone kill another person? Murder is a sin right? But wait...if you say a demon/devil possesed someone, that falsifies that also because if a demon is in control of someone, god is not in control, thus making him no longer omnipotent if control can be taken from him.
well dont take it wrong
god knows everything and he controls everything
controls humans , plants etc...........
but he left us a chance for living
do what we want and also worship him and not worshippin anybody else
he is in control of everything right
but he challenged the satan telling him if my muslim servent do something wrong and he forgives me for doing it i will
and if u know the story of the satan u'll know what happened

[RPGlover12]

Originally posted by Reznor007


Because you were raised in a muslim family. You had the general muslim ideas and beliefs in your head, even if you didn't fullly believe it, so getting something else like that you are easy to reject. When reading the quaran you found something that fit the ideas that your family gave you, so you believed it.
they never spoke about religion
cause i see my family rarely
my mother 24 hours out
my dad the same
and i was wiht no religion untill the age of 7 when i read it i was really convinced iwth it
and i liked it
and i didn't see my family taht much

[Reznor007]

Originally posted by RPGlover12

well dont take it wrong
god knows everything and he controls everything
controls humans , plants etc...........
but he left us a chance for living
do what we want and also worship him and not worshippin anybody else
he is in control of everything right
but he challenged the satan telling him if my muslim servent do something wrong and he forgives me for doing it i will
and if u know the story of the satan u'll know what happened

No, that doesn't work. If he is in complete control, we have no free will, and can't do "bad things". If he were in complete control, he would have to make us do bad things :)

[Reznor007]

Originally posted by RPGlover12

they never spoke about religion
cause i see my family rarely
my mother 24 hours out
my dad the same
and i was wiht no religion untill the age of 7 when i read it i was really convinced iwth it
and i liked it
and i didn't see my family taht much

So both of your parents were gone 24 hours a day? So...who raised you? And didn't they say to pray and things like that? And like I said, it doesn't take much to convince a 7 year old.

[RPGlover12]

my mom worked when i was 5 years old
and they didn't talk about the religion untill at 7
they told me what religion do u want to be
i told them " i will see which shuold i choose"
and i read all and i found out that islam is the most true thats why i choose islam

[RPGlover12]

Originally posted by Reznor007


No, that doesn't work. If he is in complete control, we have no free will, and can't do "bad things". If he were in complete control, he would have to make us do bad things :)
he knows what we are doing
what will we do
and we have done
ok

[Reznor007]

Originally posted by RPGlover12
my mom worked when i was 5 years old
and they didn't talk about the religion untill at 7
they told me what religion do u want to be
i told them " i will see which shuold i choose"
and i read all and i found out that islam is the most true thats why i choose islam

That sounds way too contrived. So at the grand old age of 7 you read the bible, torah, and the quaran cover to cover and understood all of it? Amazing.

But...how do you know which one is true? Each book says it is true, with no question, so how did you decide which was true.

[Reznor007]

Originally posted by RPGlover12

he knows what we are doing
what will we do
and we have done
ok

No, you said he was in complete control, which means he would have to make us do everything, good or bad.

[sk8bloke22]

at 7 u dont understand ideas and concepts like u will do when ur like 16. in this entire thread uve not once been able to convince me that god exists. in fact it seems u hav willingly accepted wat religion has offered u without objectively criticising it. u got into it a young age. thats fine, and understandable.

all it comes down to is faith. if u believe there is a god, then god exists. how can he not. its because u cannot see anything else.

ill ask u questions in the style of questions uve been asking.

who created god?
if god created himself then wat existed before god?
if there was just a layer of emptiness who created that, if god himself had not been there?
if god has always existed, then couldnt that also mean that the universe has also always existed? (same logic)
then couldn that mean that the various galaxies or wateva hav also always existed?
so couldnt that mean that the same questions concerning the absense of an 'almighty' creator' be the same questions if an 'almight creator' really existed?

isnt this quite confusing?
doesnt god just seem like an easy answer?

[sk8bloke22]

Originally posted by Reznor007


No, you said he was in complete control, which means he would have to make us do everything, good or bad.

;) u got it.

ive said this before... but im sorry it just disproves wat uve being rpglover in the last 1 hour (this is like being on a chat room).


RPGLOVER:
"he knows what we are doing what will we do
and we have done
ok"


Ill refer back to wat i found earlier:

Omnipotence (all powerful):

First off let's define desire. A desire is a wish or craving for something you don't yet possess, filling a sense of emptiness. Can god desire something without being in conflict with his omnipotence (i.e if he is the all powerful, then he can get wateva he desires)? I certainly believe not. What about god creating the world because he was lonely? For this I will summon up a hypothetical situation: if you are the only person existing, what are you contrasting loneliness to? Loneliness can not be contrasted with anything if only god existed.

Omniscence (all knowing) and Omnipotence (all powerful)

Can God tell what you will do in two days? If yes, then is it possible to do some action contrary to what God wishes within the two days? If you can bend God's will, then you are more powerful than God, and hence, God is not omnipotent. If God can't tell what you will do in two days, then God doesn't know everything, and hence, is not omniscent.

Free Will and Moral Evils --> contradicts all knowing
Omniscence (all knowing) and free will, clearly can not be reconciled, as stated above. If you have to do exactly what God wishes to be done, then you don't have freedom of choice, do you? Moral evils can no longer be blamed upon free will if free will itself doesn't exist.


Some people claim God is using us as test subjects. My question is, if God knows everything (omniscence), then why is he testing? He already is aware of the results. If he isn't aware of the results, then he isn't omniscent, and if he is aware of the results, then why is he testing people?"

so surely somethings wrong here. answers RPGlover????

and dont just quote the quaron, look at wat i just wrote and tell me why im wrong. i just took wat u wrote (notice the quote) and did the exact thing.

[Slougi]

Originally posted by Reznor007


Do you will believe in Santa Clause, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, and other such things? No? Well, your typical 7 year old does, that's how easy it is to get people to believe things when they are young.
I like dragons and unicorns :D
I wish they were true :p
I'd have a dragon as my pet and wouldn't need a car :)

[Josep]

/eat dragon:) hehe, i don't know what to say i still need to read what every one wrote....:)

[RPGlover12]

Originally posted by sk8bloke22


;) u got it.

ive said this before... but im sorry it just disproves wat uve being rpglover in the last 1 hour (this is like being on a chat room).


RPGLOVER:
"he knows what we are doing what will we do
and we have done
ok"


Ill refer back to wat i found earlier:

Omnipotence (all powerful):

First off let's define desire. A desire is a wish or craving for something you don't yet possess, filling a sense of emptiness. Can god desire something without being in conflict with his omnipotence (i.e if he is the all powerful, then he can get wateva he desires)? I certainly believe not. What about god creating the world because he was lonely? For this I will summon up a hypothetical situation: if you are the only person existing, what are you contrasting loneliness to? Loneliness can not be contrasted with anything if only god existed.

Omniscence (all knowing) and Omnipotence (all powerful)

Can God tell what you will do in two days? If yes, then is it possible to do some action contrary to what God wishes within the two days? If you can bend God's will, then you are more powerful than God, and hence, God is not omnipotent. If God can't tell what you will do in two days, then God doesn't know everything, and hence, is not omniscent.

Free Will and Moral Evils --> contradicts all knowing
Omniscence (all knowing) and free will, clearly can not be reconciled, as stated above. If you have to do exactly what God wishes to be done, then you don't have freedom of choice, do you? Moral evils can no longer be blamed upon free will if free will itself doesn't exist.


Some people claim God is using us as test subjects. My question is, if God knows everything (omniscence), then why is he testing? He already is aware of the results. If he isn't aware of the results, then he isn't omniscent, and if he is aware of the results, then why is he testing people?"

so surely somethings wrong here. answers RPGlover????

and dont just quote the quaron, look at wat i just wrote and tell me why im wrong. i just took wat u wrote (notice the quote) and did the exact thing.

ok here it is sk8bloke
am going to explain how the satan which also called Iblis in arabic but anyway
there was once before life excisted before earth excisted god created angels and then after that he wanted to create somethin a little less powerfull than the angels and he created the jinns for the earth for the same prupose as we have to worship god and to build on the earth but they didn't and they destroyed the earth insted of the other there was a jinn called IBlis and allah loved him very much so when allah ordered the angels to kill all the jinns except Iblis they did that because allah loved him so much so he was among the angels but after that when allah created adam in the heavens he said to the angels among them Iblis pray for him all of the angels said yes except Iblis and he said why should i pray for something less than me he is not more powerfull than me then why should i then allah gave him a final warning he told him to pray he still said no so he told him u'll be pure evil
and am telling u if my worshippers do something wrong they are going to forgive me if they did am going to forgive them forwhat they did and thats they story for Iblis and after that Iblis told adam to eat from the tree and he said no i wont eat from the tree untill eve came and Iblis whispered in her ears to eat the tree she told adam to eat from the tree and he did so they both came down to the earth
and that the story of the first living

First off let's define desire. A desire is a wish or craving for something you don't yet possess, filling a sense of emptiness. Can god desire something without being in conflict with his omnipotence (i.e if he is the all powerful, then he can get wateva he desires)? I certainly believe not. What about god creating the world because he was lonely? For this I will summon up a hypothetical situation: if you are the only person existing, what are you contrasting loneliness to? Loneliness can not be contrasted with anything if only god existed
he wasn't lonely he had angels and jinns so he wasn't

Can God tell what you will do in two days? If yes, then is it possible to do some action contrary to what God wishes within the two days? If you can bend God's will, then you are more powerful than God, and hence, God is not omnipotent. If God can't tell what you will do in two days, then God doesn't know everything, and hence, is not omniscent.
he can but no one can see god and talk to god so thats why and if he want u to do something he will make u do i tlike when he said to the fire not to burn Ibrahim the fire said yes and it didn't burn Ibrahim
Some people claim God is using us as test subjects. My question is, if God knows everything (omniscence), then why is he testing? He already is aware of the results. If he isn't aware of the results, then he isn't omniscent, and if he is aware of the results, then why is he testing people
he just want u to realize what u're going to do
like when u're in the judgement day u're going to tell god where is my life u didn't give me a chance for life thats why
its not excatly as a test objects
he just wants us to worshipp him and work for our family and live our life without any sins thats why

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by RPGlover12
u dont buy it cause ure afraid of it
dont you
let me ask u a question
have u ever tried to think who created us who created this universe who created the moon and who created the sun talking about the sun lets seeeeee
sun : how the heck could anybody creates something like that impossible no way except a great force like allah could create it and noway could any thing could create something like that noway no other way
tell me who created this sun
huh this melting thing we get burned form it even we are from about 600000000000000000 miles away from it
explain this

i am NOT afraid, YOU are!! why does something have to have created something? because its big? because humans cant? volcanoes are big, i know for a fact theyre formed by nature and the living earth, humans didnt create them... the moon... was a part of earth... it wasnt just plonked there it has a history, it was hit by a comet and separated from earth and is suspended in earths gravitational pull... you really cant let go can you

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by Josep
I don't know my religion enough to answer a question like who created god, or who created anything, isn't that one of life's mysteries?

yes, its a mysetery, so forgive me for not wanting to give my sunday mornings to a mystery:blush:

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by Reznor007


That right there says alot. It's going for the "humans aren't smart enough to understand it" angle...well, I don't buy it. I like the whole "guilty until proven innocent" idea that courts use, in other words, it didn't happen unless you can proove it.

BINGO

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by RPGlover12

and i read all and i found out that islam is the most true thats why i choose islam

you said earlier in this topic you never read the bible... and to be a scholar of all the religions in 7 years is something considering it takes most people until their adult years to figure it out

[sk8bloke22]

"he wasn't lonely he had angels and jinns so he wasn't "

so why did he create the earth? wat purpose?

"he can but no one can see god and talk to god so thats why and if he want u to do something he will make u do i tlike when he said to the fire not to burn Ibrahim the fire said yes and it didn't burn Ibrahim"

hmmm.....u cant see god or talk to god...how do u know he exists then........if a tree falls in a distant forest how do u know it makes a sound, u assume it makes a sound. like u assume god exists. u r not proving wat i said wrong, u r merely making excuses.

"he just want u to realize what u're going to do
like when u're in the judgement day u're going to tell god where is my life u didn't give me a chance for life thats why
its not excatly as a test objects
he just wants us to worshipp him and work for our family and live our life without any sins thats why"

if he realises wat we r gonna do, wats the test? he knows the outcome. well to me a day of judgement sounds like a day when god tests us....we have one in judasim, but god knows if we r gonna repent, he knows the outcome. so wats the point in repenting.....maybe it helps ur own self-confidence, fine, great.

u maybe right that we hav little control over our lives. but that doesnt mean we hav to worship thin air. people dont seem to understand that if a tree can grow without human influence, but can be explained entirely by science (the process of photosynthesis, etc etc) then maybe we will eventually understand how a planet can be made.

[sk8bloke22]

Originally posted by Reznor007


That right there says alot. It's going for the "humans aren't smart enough to understand it" angle...well, I don't buy it. I like the whole "guilty until proven innocent" idea that courts use, in other words, it didn't happen unless you can proove it.

it didnt happen unless u can proove it? thats quite a tricky concept. that would mean (going back to my falling tree hehe) that if a tree falls in a distant forest, no one is there, no one sees or hears it, but it does fall. how can u proove that? or maybe u r right, the tree doesnt even exist.... u hav 2 options, the way i see it, either u accept it, nod ur head, and go 'of course it fell, i didnt see, but u just told me it did' or question its even existance...

dont know if i fully agree with that comment Reznor, but i like it none the less. ;)

[Azimer]

You guys need to stop your idle speculation and insane observations of the world around you. Some of you sound just damn foolish about your assumed knowledge of biblical work. I will only say one thing. How can you sit there at your computer and say "God doesn't exist"? Who are you to say he doesn't exist? Science? Charles Darwin? Give me a break. You are too shallow to find God for yourselves. The answers ARE out there. Everything you have and observe here is NOTHING. Stop looking at NOTHING and see the answers for yourselves.

Oh... and one more thing. God gave us free will. That basically says you can do whatever the hell you want. That is why we sin (in response to the murder comment). Don't believe if you don't want to... just leave everyone else alone.

Mark 9:42 - "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea."

[sk8bloke22]

hey if u wanna be left alone then fine. i believe one thing u believe another. i dont care if u do/ do not believe in god. this is just a discussion, its not a topic concerning life or death. i personally find this interesting, despite the fact that this topic has centered aroun only a few ppl. who am i to say god doesnt exist...im no-one correct. just as u r nobody to say god does exist.

see thats wat i h8, why i am too shallow, cos im looking at other answers instead.

and no i dont think im charles darwin, i know nothing on the topic, i dont care to admit that. likewise i no nothing about emulation, but ill still chat on an emu forum. its not the point. im just trying to put forward my views, and if u say that nobody cares, well thats obviously wrong, as this is one of the longest threads on emutalk. i find interesting, obviously rpglover finds it interesting, obviously sytaylor finds it interesting, obviously slougi finds it interesting...and so on.....so i dont care wat u say.

and idle worship, wat the crap r u talking about...

[blizz]

Originally posted by Azimer
Who are you to say he doesn't exist? Science? Charles Darwin? Give me a break.

You don't believe Darwin. I think Darwinian thought is probaby the closet we'll get to the truth of the origins of life, within the current paradigm at least. Does it scare you that Man is related to monkeys, or the whales? At least Darwinian theory is being proved by genetics. Darwinian theory makes a lot more sense really then the six days in genesis. (and on the seventh day he rested, wonderfully quaint that part). Although some christians are now embracing this as part of the Argument From Design.

Originally posted by Azimer
The answers ARE out there. Everything you have and observe here is NOTHING. Stop looking at NOTHING and see the answers for yourselves.

Yes take a look at the world around you. Are you certain of your senses? Do you have absolute truth that your senses are accurate since many a time it can be shown that they are not. Of course you can assume their accurate.

Originally posted by Azimer
Oh... and one more thing. God gave us free will. That basically says you can do whatever the hell you want. That is why we sin (in response to the murder comment). Don't believe if you don't want to... just leave everyone else alone.

true if you take it that God gave us freewill, but why give us free will in the first place? If you take the argument from design then we have no free will, God designed this world, our genes the physical laws, we are bound by these laws, we have not got the free will to define ourselves and our environments as we see fit we are limited by our physical forms and those around us.

[Reznor007]

Darwinian theory makes a lot more sense really then the six days in genesis. (and on the seventh day he rested, wonderfully quaint that part).

Hehe, why does god need to rest? He's omnipotent afterall. He could've made our galaxy and kept on going. But no, this infinitely powerful being needed rest. Sounds fishy to me.

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by Azimer
You guys need to stop your idle speculation and insane observations of the world around you. Some of you sound just damn foolish about your assumed knowledge of biblical work. I will only say one thing. How can you sit there at your computer and say "God doesn't exist"? Who are you to say he doesn't exist? Science? Charles Darwin? Give me a break. You are too shallow to find God for yourselves. The answers ARE out there. Everything you have and observe here is NOTHING. Stop looking at NOTHING and see the answers for yourselves.

Oh... and one more thing. God gave us free will. That basically says you can do whatever the hell you want. That is why we sin (in response to the murder comment). Don't believe if you don't want to... just leave everyone else alone.

Mark 9:42 - "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea."

point taken but you dont have to read this topic, rpglover is posting and otehrs are counter posting...

and as a side note, notice how you quote the bible, that indeed is a clever thought provoking quote, but whats to say that was ever even said? hmm? how do you know it was not a scholar trying to explain why you should not debate religion, im not trying to destroy faith... id HATE the idea... faith is a wonderful thing, what i want is to debate the existance of god

[RPGlover12]

ok sk8bloke here is something
lets talk again about the tree
lets say someone talked to it
and another one talked to it
and then they didn't leave it untill they died
so do u say that the proof is gone because nobody talked to him in this age
well dont be so concerned there is one that is going to make u all guys go to the islam do u want to know who he is he is jesus ur prophet guys he is coming from the heavens go down to the earth and kill the antichrist with the mahdi (a guy who was born to make the unmuslims go back to their religion he is going to be chalifs)do u remember Ibrahim when he was the only person standing in the whole world he was the only one who is a believer none of his family or anybody believed him they even said that he was a liar and he hadn't been send by god they thought that their god is the stones that they worshipp him and after that they burned him for breaking it so he allah made the fire be calm and comfortobale for him and he didn't have any harm can u believe it just because he was telling the truth and wanted men to believe him another one is jesus when he was going to get killed by some men do u know the traitor that told the guys where he is allah made that guy looks like jesus so they killed him not jesus and jesus went up to the heavens and he is waiting for the day that allah tells him to come down from heavens to make the people believe in islam and there are other many stories about god saving those guys from everything i dont remember them all but i can't tell them to u guys cause u will say "how do u believe some stuff like that "and say silly thing
and sytaylor
can u tell me what am scared of ??????????? can u explain to me why am scared if am do scared i wouldn't stop posting and posting and posting and posting untill i finish up everything in this world
u're the one who is scared not me

[sk8bloke22]

Originally posted by RPGlover12
ok sk8bloke here is something
lets talk again about the tree
lets say someone talked to it
and another one talked to it
and then they didn't leave it untill they died
so do u say that the proof is gone because nobody talked to him in this age


well, in theory (as this is just a theory, an idea), unless the ppl were known about then they didnt exist. its just like saying, theres probably types of people in the other half of the world who u didnt realise existed. but i dont understand ur example......2 guys talk to a tree? and then die next to it. well for those people they saw and quite strangely talked to the tree, so fr them it existed...........its not quite the idea of wats being said.

if like i tell u a tree just fell down in a forest, how do u know it made a sound? im shit at getting examples, someone just told me that a while back

[RPGlover12]

ok lets do another
like there is a guy who nobody talked to him except 2 and others talked to him using the telephone but nobody now knows his number u just keep on searching for his number he can hear u and talk to u tele. but u can't hear his voice
ok lets stop the examples
lets say something sk8bloke
1st this guy made 3 books
a book ahs been changed
and another has been changed
the third hasn't and they all speak about this guy and his goodness and what should we do to please him and this guy doesnt' the first book nor the second he only likes the 3rd
and he wants us to read this book and like it and dont care about the 2 old
which are u going to do

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by RPGlover12

and sytaylor
can u tell me what am scared of ??????????? can u explain to me why am scared if am do scared i wouldn't stop posting and posting and posting and posting untill i finish up everything in this world
u're the one who is scared not me

why am i scared? what do i have to fear? you are the one who is defending something here... you're arguments seem somewhat irrational too. I can live with the fact that there may not be an afterlife, im not scared of not having eternal life... everybody dies

origioanlly posted by RPGlover12

ok lets do another
like there is a guy who nobody talked to him except 2 and others talked to him using the telephone but nobody now knows his number u just keep on searching for his number he can hear u and talk to u tele. but u can't hear his voice
ok lets stop the examples
lets say something sk8bloke
1st this guy made 3 books
a book ahs been changed
and another has been changed
the third hasn't and they all speak about this guy and his goodness and what should we do to please him and this guy doesnt' the first book nor the second he only likes the 3rd
and he wants us to read this book and like it and dont care about the 2 old
which are u going to do

first of all you dont know which books have and have not been changed because not you nor most of your ancestors were alive during the writings and passing down of this 3rd book. Plus because something is not changed does not make it right. It could still be as wrong as it was 1400 years ago!

second of all "they all speak about", that is only in your life, where i live im allowed to make my own decisions about what i see is right, if i want a religion i go get it, nothing is forced/offered to me (not anymore anyways). For some reason most of the people who go to churchg do so "for an afterlife" and im sorry but there has to be more you can do in your life than turn up to some building for eternal life... like maybe be a good person?!

[medical_guy]

I have a scientific proof that is fully debatable about the existance of god, i study medicine, but i will not get to how many wonders the human being has without him realising it. I will speak in terms of simple chemistry and physics, i know most of u guys here are programers and engineers who got so much carried away with their science that they doubted the presence of GOD. Listen:
People say that life came to be spontaniously,( through evolution), but according to the laws of chemistry and sheer knowledge, there is something which we call entropy( simply the degree of disorder) molecules of this world tend to go into an unordered matter. U can easily test it, simply put 10 white balls in one side of a box, and 10 other black on the other side, close the box, and mix, the balls white and black will be all mixed, if u continue to mix for 1000 years u will never find them sorted the way u have put them on each side of a box. If these things must be ordered u have to get yourself to SORT THEM WITH UR hand each type (black or white on each side of the box). Now imagine this WHOLE WORLD WITH THE UNCOUNTABLE amount of molecules are mixed together since big bang, do u think that it is so simple to sort itself into this life form possibility, this would NEVER happen unless some THING sorts it with the expenditure of power to allow for the proper sorting of life. Therefore there MUST be a power that sorted life from the bigining which the power of GOD. This as simple as I can go, there are much better examples in medicine that can easily rule out evolution, but simply look at evolution, the best word that evolutionsets like is "OVER TIME THIS HAPPENED AND THAT HAPPENED", they never backup their statments with real explinations, for example, we had the bacteria, over time it became an eukaryote, over time they gathered to form a plant and so on". Scientists so far cannot "make" the simplest living form. They only "emulate" the condition of life, take things from life and try to understand them. So life is MUCH MUCH MORE complicated than simply a natural thing that cam by chance.
Secondly about the religions, i always like to repeat aword, NEVER EVER JUDGE A BOOK OR A RELIGION without knowing it truly. People, if u can simply understand what is written in the Holy Quran, u would never have ever said such a thing as it is wrong or doubted. The language it uses is so huge, that MANY of the scientific advances we have now are written in it. For ur knowledge, this book says that the earth is actually oval in shape more than 1400 years ago, when people in europe did thought that the world ends at the atlantic ocean. In our book, it says how a human being is made from the stage of the embryo till he is born. Please be more open minded and think.
Sytaylor, to me a religion that controls the circle of life and provides me with enough proofs that are logical to the human mind, is much better than a religion that actually admits that it had many mistakes in its presence. And to me a religion that puts me in the right track with giving me a choice to be a good person, is better than a culture that says u are free to do whatever u want and make the people go freely without knowing what is right and wrong, for example the problem of uncontroled sex in the USA, look what it has caused, so many probelms, including the wide spread AIDs in that country, and the huge number of kid that never get to be raised by their real parent, ( if they are ever raised at all). In our religion, a person must marry religiously in order to make sex with someone, which makes a much better life with a healthier marrige and much better care for the children.
I hope u read my full long post, but please be open minded and read, do not just say this guy is against me, on the other side, i must flame him with a post.

[adi]

Totally agree with you medical guy. For me the argument comes down to this:

1. You're totally open-minded to the possibility that God exists.

2. You're totally open-minded to the possibility that God doesn't exist.

I go for number 1, but there is no right or wrong in this debate. It will just continue forever until someone has concrete evidence to prove their view.

[RPGlover12]

hey medical guy where have u been all this time and thnx for helping me in the proving stuff i really appreciate it and i say it fully hearted
just keep on going medical guy

[sk8bloke22]

Originally posted by RPGlover12
ok lets do another
like there is a guy who nobody talked to him except 2 and others talked to him using the telephone but nobody now knows his number u just keep on searching for his number he can hear u and talk to u tele. but u can't hear his voice
ok lets stop the examples
lets say something sk8bloke
1st this guy made 3 books
a book ahs been changed
and another has been changed
the third hasn't and they all speak about this guy and his goodness and what should we do to please him and this guy doesnt' the first book nor the second he only likes the 3rd
and he wants us to read this book and like it and dont care about the 2 old
which are u going to do

and thats meant to convince me ???

i would say thats nice, but theres more to life than just reading books.

[RPGlover12]

Originally posted by sk8bloke22


and thats meant to convince me ???

i would say thats nice, but theres more to life than just reading books.
it didn't mean to convince u at all i just wanted u to believe in religion and stuff it wasn't made to convince u i dunno it just came to my mind so i typed it ;)

[sk8bloke22]

ah but the world didnt just occur from a big bang, helped by nothing. back to ur box, as u said, the balls are only ordered and the level of entropy is only lowered from an external source. that would make the box an 'open system'. i.e it cannot tidy itself, it can only stay the same or increase in the amount of entropy (such as say dirt)...

im gonna quote that site again as aint a big authority on the issue of open/closed systems...,so for those who have already read this, u dont really need to again. kinda just for medical guy as he is late in the debate, hehe:

"The second law of thermodynamics basically says that the entropy in a closed system tends to increase or stay the same. That may sound complex to those who aren't familiar with physics, but it really is very simple. Entropy is just the amount of disorder in a system, and a system is basically anything you can think of. An atom is a system. Earth is a system. Our galaxy is a system. When I say disorder, I really mean disorder. At first glance, most people think that entropy is an actual chemical thing that has substance to it, and make it out to be a whole lot more complicated than it really is. Entropy really is disorder, in the very same sense that is commonly used by the general public. A room that has clothing cluttered about the floor, books piling out of the closet, and dirty dishes scattered everywhere has high entropy, while a room that has everything neatly filed away has low entropy. The second law tells us that the amount of entropy in a closed system tends to increase or stay the same. For example, a dirty house left on its own will not become clean. Dust can collect on surfaces, mold can settle in, and so on. The best you can hope for is for things to stay the same.

You may think that you can decrease the entropy of a system yourself by cleaning that messy room or using a vaccum cleaner. This brings us to what I mean by closed systems. There are two kinds of systems: closed and open. An open system is defined as a system that has an outside source of energy. Earth, for example, is open because it has the sun. Your room, for example, is an open system because it has an outside energy source: you. With an outside energy source, entropy in a contained area can actually decrease. It can only decrease, however, at the expense of other parts of the universe. The second law really only applies to the universe as a whole. You room, for example, is messy again. You decide to clean it. You pick up the clothes, fold them and put them away. While your room may have decreased in entropy, the rest of the universe has not. The energy that you used to pick up your room was expelled from your body as heat. More heat means more entropy. The amount of entropy generated by the heat from you far outweighs any entropy you may have "taken away" from you. This is why the second law of thermodynamics speaks specifically about closed systems. Closed systems have no energy source. The only truly closed system in existence is the entire universe itself, because that is all there is. It has no outside energy source because there isn't anything outside of it to begin with. That tiny little section of the cosmos that is your room may have decreased in entropy, but for reasons already discussed, the rest of the universe suffers from an increase. The second law prevails: the closed system increases in entropy.

What does this have to do with evolution?

Evolution, as we all know, involves the very gradual change of organisms over long periods of geologic time. Very often, those changes are from simple to complex. Certainly, a human is more ordered (has less entropy) than a single celled bacteria. That would mean that evolution from basic cells to modern animals would decrease the entropy of the universe, and violate the second law, correct? No. Actually, its quite the opposite. The more complex a system is, the more entropy it has. Imagine a box. It doesn't matter what kind of box. Just imagine a box. Imagine that there is a single hydrogen atom bouncing around inside of that box. It seems neat and tidy, right? Most people imagine this as a box with a little red or blue ball bouncing around inside of it. Now imagine a box with a hundred of those balls bouncing around inside of it. Imagine red blue and green balls. Imagine different sized balls. Imagine ten thousand different balls bouncing around inside at incredible speeds. The system is more complex now because of all of the features we've added, and it's become much more disordered, hasn't it?

A good way to think of the amount of entropy in a system is how many states are there that the system could be in that have the overall same appearance. Think about the box again. Imagine it with one atom bouncing around again. Compare two states that the system of the box could be in: one where the ball is all the way on the left side of the box, and another where the ball is all the way on the right side of the box. You can easily distinguish the two, right? You can do the same with the atom being at the top of the box, at the bottom, etc., and none of them really look the same, do they? Let's go back to our box with the thousands of balls. Picture the different states that the box might be in. Because all of these balls are all over the place and the box is jam packed, all of these states have the same overall appearance. For this reason, water has extremely high amounts of entropy. Imagine a glass of clear water with nothing else in it. Just water. Imagine stirring the water now. After the water slows down, what does it look like? It doesn't look any different at all, does it? Even though the water molecules inside that glass are in completely different positions due to your stirring, it still has the same overall appearance. Organisms are the same way.

Imagine a very simple cell with nothing but a nucleus. Imagine the different states it might be in (I would probably picture the nucleus in different places). Imagine the nucleus on the left side of the cell. Now imagine it on the right. You can tell the difference, right? These two states don't have the same overall appearance. Now imagine trillions of cells all mangled around. Imagine all the different positions these cells might have. They all have the same overall appearance, don't they? That's because more complex systems have higher entropy. This is well known in science. The mistake that creationists make when they believe that evolution violates the second law is that they think that simple to complex means disordered to ordered. As I've shown, this is not nearly the case. More ordered most certainly does not mean more complex.

After hearing this explanation, some creationists probe further by saying that the assembly of non living material into life violates the second law. Again, this is not true, but for a different reason than discussed above. The random scattering of nucleotides, DNA, RNA and so on all mangled around forming into a neat little cell does go from disordered to ordered. What creationists do not take into account here is that the earth is not a closed system. These things can happen because the earth has the sun as an energy source. The sun and lightning heating the ocean would provoke chemical reactions among all of those organic compounds that would tend not to happen without them, just like the second law says. Imagine, for example, a park. Through the middle of the park is a stone wall. Scattered in a disordered fashion across the ground on the west side of the wall are many, many leaves. Imagine that wind blows these leaves east. All of the leaves collect on the walls. These collections of leaves are more ordered than the state that the leaves were in before the wind blew. Again, this can happen because earth is an open system. The wind is a result of differences in air pressure, which is a result of the unequal heating of the earth by the sun. Had the earth been a closed system, there would be no sun, therefore no wind, and the leaves would have just sat there. It's the same way with organisms.

Now, even if simple to complex did mean disordered to ordered, the usage of food energy, as said before, far outweighs any decrease in entropy made by bodily functions. For you to clean your room, you use that food energy. For organelles inside cells to get rid of waste unwanted substances, energy is used. That energy is either derived from plants, which get their energy from the sun by photosynthesis, or by photosynthesis carried out by the cell itself (or, in rare cases chemosynthesis), and is expelled as heat, increasing the universe's entropy. True: the cell may be cleaner and more ordered, but outside the cell there is more heat and therefore more entropy. The cell is an open system, just like the earth. "

[sk8bloke22]

Originally posted by RPGlover12

it didn't mean to convince u at all i just wanted u to believe in religion and stuff it wasn't made to convince u i dunno it just came to my mind so i typed it ;)

fair enuff

[RPGlover12]

yes

[sytaylor]

"People say that life came to be spontaniously"

i dont, i say i dont think a god HAD to have caused life

entropy by its very nature cannot be exclusive, its an oxymoron! you're saying a random event cannot happen because its unlikeley! Do you know how silly it is to completley not consider something becuase it doesn't "seem" possible? The reason people say over time "this happened and that happened" is because that is the explanation, not a lack of...

"Therefore there MUST be a power" why why why why? because its all you can think of? OPEN YOUR MINDS PEOPLE, because something is more likeley and you believe it does not make it true.

"Scientists so far cannot "make" the simplest living form." yes but we can modify it trhough science, change it alter it... something at one point thought of as something only a god could do... plus we can replicate life we just do it the way nature does (eg test tube babies). If we want to create our own living beings then we'd prolly look towards AI to start with.

To believe in religion you have to close your mind and accept a theory of which you have no proof. My view is that i cannot proove anything so why should i believe anything?

I agree some people need religion, but religion shows me nothing but false hopes and empty promises

[medical_guy]

Quote from:
"Most people imagine this as a box with a little red or blue ball bouncing around inside of it. Now imagine a box with a hundred of those balls bouncing around inside of it. Imagine red blue and green balls. Imagine different sized balls. Imagine ten thousand different balls bouncing around inside at incredible speeds. The system is more complex now because of all of the features we've added, and it's become much more disordered, hasn't it? "
Ahhh, but u r forgetting a very important thing, the human body is not simply a bigger box with more molecules, molecules in the human body r organized into new boxes and into certain places, a heart is not present once in ur leg, then in ur head, its always tilted a bit to ur left side of ur thorax, dna and rna are not flying in the human body, it is arranged in the building units of the body the cell, so to refine this model u must say that as we put more molecules, we also create more boxes organizing these molecules thus order MUST mean a lower level of entropy. U r actualy putting them INTO ceratin posititions and leaving them free there to be.
"The random scattering of nucleotides, DNA, RNA and so on all mangled around forming into a neat little cell does go from disordered to ordered. What creationists do not take into account here is that the earth is not a closed system. These things can happen because the earth has the sun as an energy source. The sun and lightning heating the ocean would provoke chemical reactions among all of those organic compounds that would tend not to happen without them, just like the second law says."
Are u saying that DNA , RNA , nucleotides have actually been created from the sun energy, lightning, fire etc. Firstly i have two objections, the most complex scientests right now can do in synthesizing organic compounds right now is much much simpler than the simplest polypeptide, that is with all the technology, created atmosphere perfect conditions, and with the addition of something u have removed from the principle of evolution, a THINKING MIND.
Always remember one thing, when a person die, he ceases to live, we burry him, this causes him to degenerate into the soil, EVEN WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF BACTERIA. Now, if this is the spontanous reaction that is favored by the universe, for us to degenerate, for the dna and rna and protiens to reurn to simple molecules, this means this IS what causes a higher degree of disorder, this means the opposite was a lower degree of disorder and it occurs so quikly that life . They are only returned to life by ANOTHER LIFE FORM, not by itself. I would love to see more objective replies as the one u have sent. So i hope u reply in the same way u have just did.

[medical_guy]

Quote:
"Do you know how silly it is to completley not consider something becuase it doesn't "seem" possible?"
I never said it is not possible because of randomness, IT IS TOTALY IMPOSIBLE IF IT BREAKS THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS which i am trying to proove here.
"The reason people say over time "this happened and that happened" is because that is the explanation, not a lack of... "
And i suppose that time can create wonders better than a powerfull creator ! Time is the explanation, well... then this means that ur whole theory is built on possibility and chances, i do not suppose that this is a more plausable theory than GOD.
"Therefore there MUST be a power" why why why why? because its all you can think of? OPEN YOUR MINDS PEOPLE, because something is more likeley and you believe it does not make it true.
I have written a hole post just to explain why, and not just because it is the only explanation, it is simply THE LOGICAL ONE for GOD's sake! opening my mind is exactly what i am trying to do.
"To believe in religion you have to close your mind and accept a theory of which you have no proof"
Who said so. First of all u do not have to close ur mind. Secondly, it DOES have a proof. People look at the Quran, there are tons of proofs within it. At least this religion offered me enough proofs, if ur religion doesn't offer u enough proofs does'nt mean all are the same, and that is exactly what is meant by open ur MIND, try to look at what other religions have as proofs, then judge that they are wrong or right
"I agree some people need religion, but religion shows me nothing but false hopes and empty promises"
False hopes...... empty promises, this sound more of a politician in the congress than my religion. At least going in life using the quran DID offer me a happier life than without it, and i have tried both lifes.

[sk8bloke22]

cheers medical guy for giving me a good challenge....ill get back to u on that (just paid a visit to britboard, funny stuff)........andyway i beleive ppl can lead a happy life with religion. but religion has been seen in many cases its used as a political and tactical propaganda tool for institutions...u only hav to look at the now gone taliban system to see that. the whole regime was based on forcing fear into the population to maintain control, that fear derrived from religion, even if the religion itself was placed in the controls of dictators. the church has also been a culprit in corrupt politics and meddlings. i think that religion on a personal and individual level can be a stimulating experience, just as living a free life without religion. there hav been non-religious ppl who hav been just as happy the most-religious ppl. thats not really the question, the question is on the relevance of relgion if the existance of god is put in question.

as im not an expert on entropy, etc, ill try and answer ur decent reply medical guy in a posts time (at last some scientific stuff to read), i suggest reading that debate i linked on the first page of this very very very long thread. its very balanced and there arent really any conclusions other than the 2 profs own opposing views (ones a creationalist, the other an athiest) but arguements are pretty good.

[Reznor007]

Ahhh, but u r forgetting a very important thing, the human body is not simply a bigger box with more molecules, molecules in the human body r organized into new boxes and into certain places, a heart is not present once in ur leg, then in ur head, its always tilted a bit to ur left side of ur thorax, dna and rna are not flying in the human body, it is arranged in the building units of the body the cell, so to refine this model u must say that as we put more molecules, we also create more boxes organizing these molecules thus order MUST mean a lower level of entropy. U r actualy putting them INTO ceratin posititions and leaving them free there to be.

But while things are generally in the same area, they ARE NOT the same. Hair color, eye color, height, weight, amount of body hair, skin tone, facial features...everthing. While similar, noone is identical(excluding identical twins, since that is the same zygote/embryo that has split and continued growing..even though they are not truly identical). What about levels of intelligence, mental/physical retardation, people born missing a finger or having an extra toe. Hows that for entropy?

[sytaylor]

im not saying time is the answer at all, what i am saying is that the universe is not a box full of balls, we know so little about it i think its wrong to say it was created by a god. Remember you are thinking about things from a "there is a god and i know him her thought my religion" perspective... this clouds the idea that something can happen without that.

I fully believe i am typing right now of MY own free will and the fact my hands are moving is something created by me and my living energy... where this came from i dont know, but seriously, im yet to be given an example of a writing in religion that strikes me as anything more than a very clever way to disguise the fact the author had no phisical evidence.

and im sorry but how is an omniptant being that has no control over my thoughts logical?:blush:

seriously i wanna know what makes people believe, cos i still havent seen anything that grabs me and completley destroys my scepticism...

my life is extreemley happy! seriously ive had such a great life, im young, i can think what i want, im not in poverty, i love those closest to me and theres on person in particular who makes me happy at the very thought of them. i have no religion but i dont consider myself a bad person, im extreemley moral and religion offers me nothing i dont already have. The false hopes to me are and afterlife... i think its living where i do that drives it home... i love above a mortuary, everybody dies, so if we die what is the point in us living? what prupose does it serve? what does it proove? froma none creationalist point of view life seems to struggle on and do its darndest to survive and i can see why it would, but from a creationalist... whats the point? what does life proove that and omnipitent being does not already know?

[sk8bloke22]

atmosphere in perfect conditions.......that may hav taken years for that to happen, millions of years. if the atmosphere was in different conditions compared to know, how would we live on this planet.

ok about the body and the organs. well if we ourselves are therefore open systems, then surely something most hav tydied us up or wateva. u assume god, but if the thoery of evolution is correct, then surely the placement of body parts is an affect of the natural selection of nature itself. the theory of evolution assumes that other millions of years and through a process of natural selection, life evolves and alters itself, byitself. well, consider that, then we obviously did not just appear on the earth by a magic wand pointed by god, but came into an existance through millions years of evolution. just as early discovered skulls of wat is considered to be early man (often compared to aboriginis) is slightly different in shape to the typical human skull no, as in distinctive differences.

heres some more stuff from that website:

"The Eye
Creationists just love the human eye. It is an amazingly complex organ with hundreds of parts all working together, and our bible thumping friends like to cite it as an example of something that evolution could not have produced. The argument consists of two parts: the eye is too complex to have formed randomly, and natural selection does not apply to it because the eye is useless until fully formed, and would not have been favorable in beginning stages. The creationists are right about one thing. The eye is too complex to have formed randomly. The odds of one forming without any direction are incredibly small, and no one in their right mind would claim otherwise. Fortunately, evolution does have direction. Evolution is not random, because of natural selection. That brings us to the second part of the argument. According to the creationists, natural selection would be of no help because the eye can't be used (and therefore cannot be an advantage to an organism) until it is fully formed. Let's examine different types of eyes and see what exactly "fully formed" means.

When we hear the word eye, we usually think of the large white sphere like objects inside of our skulls. What we don't realize is that complex animals such as humans, frogs, and lizards aren't the only ones fortunate enough to have the ability to see. Frogs, I believe, have the best eyes out of any animal. It is believed that their eyes can actually detect single photons of light. What is important here, though, is whether or not simpler forms of eyes exist. If we find very primitive eyes on ancient organisms, then we know that intermediate stages in the development of the eye would be prone to natural selection because they do work, unlike what the creationists are telling us.

Fish have simpler eyes than us, and they work perfectly fine. Arthropods have simpler eyes than us, and they work perfectly fine. Many mollusks have eyes which are far simpler than ours (except for cephalopods -- they have advanced eyes), and they work perfectly fine. However, the furthest away you can get form the standard definition of an eye, in my opinion, is the eye of a planarian. Planarians are members of the acoelomate flatworms. Flatworms are one of the oldest species of animal, and were the very first to have tissues organized into organs. These tiny creatures, as incredibly simple as they may be, have eyes. Actually, they aren't even called eyes. They're called eyespots. These eyes, really, are just a collection of light sensitive cells connected to the incredibly tiny brain of the planarian. They can't form even the simplest of images. They can only detect large differences in light. The eyes can't even move. They're stationary. These eyes are incredibly simple and underdeveloped, yet they serve a purpose that is definitely prone to natural selection. The same applies to all of the other primitive sight organs in organisms. There are plenty of fully functioning intermediate stages of the eye for natural selection to act upon.

So what does it mean, exactly, that natural selection can aid the evolutionary process? It means that the incredibly tiny odds of eyes as complex as ours forming shoot way up into the range of the probable. Creationists love to say, "The odds of random mutations forming a human being through evolution is quite like a monkey accidentally typing an unabridged dictionary". Actually, it's not at all like it. Natural selection lets organisms develop one helpful trait, then pass it on, rather than having to form that same trait over and over again with every generation by random chance. Imagine a monkey randomly punching keys on his type writer. What are the odds of the monkey typing the word "Hello"? There are twenty six keys (twenty seven if you include the spacebar), and there are five letters in the word hello. That means that the odds of the monkey accidentally typing the word correctly are one in twenty seven raised to the fifth power. My calculator tells me that is one in 14,348,907. The problem with this calculation is that it does not take three things into account: natural selection, several monkies, and alternate possibilities. Now, since we are using this as an analogy to demonstrate the evolution of the eye, and the eye is a helpful organ, let us use natural selection to pass on correctly punched letters. Suppose the monkey types the letter M. That is an incorrect letter (or a harmful mutation) and will be thrown out. The monkey tries again. S. Again, that is incorrect. The monkey tries a third time. H. Bingo! Now, in the real world, helpful mutations (or in this example, correct letters) are passed on to offspring. Without natural selection, the monkey would have to type E after H. If he screws it up, then he has to start all over again. If, by some miracle, he manages to type HE, he still has to type the L. If he misses it, he has to start all over again, and it might be a very long time before he punches HE again to win another shot at it. You can see that typing the word HELLO without natural selection can be a very, very long process.

With natural selection, however, the monkey only has to get the right letters once. When he types H for the first time, that's all he has to do, because natural selection lets him pass the H down. If he screws up the next letter, it's no big deal because he'll just go back to H again. The monkey type HE. Now, for L. After several misses, the monkey hits L. Again, after several more misses, our friend hits another L, and finally, an O. This process with one monkey would probably take no more than five minutes. It's really just the amount of time would take for you to hit every letter on the keyboard five times. Actually, it could be a lot less than that because you would only have to hit each key five times until you hit the right letters. A monkey, with natural selection, can easily type the word hello. Unfortunately, we're talking about dictionaries, not single words. One monkey using this method to type a dictionary would take centuries. Luckily, in the real world, there is not just one monkey. There is also not just one mutation a day. There are thousands. Imagine thousands of mutations every day of the year for ten years. For a hundred. For a thousand. A million. A hundred million. How about three and a half billion years? (The oldest fossils ever found have been dated to about 3.5 billion years.) The odds are dramatically more likely now, but that's still not the end of the story.

Creationists make the very false assumption that the way that life is now was the only path is could have taken. They think that after 3.5 billion years of evolution, in every possible scenario, the newest result would be humans -- tall, bipedal organisms that have no hair and the ability to speak. They also think that these organisms would have evolved from chimpanzees, and chimpanzees from simpler primates, and primates from monkeys, and monkeys from other mammals, and mammals from reptiles, reptiles from amphibians, amphibians from fish, and so on. They act as if this evolutionary scenario is the only one that would have worked. They cannot be more wrong. There is an astronomical amount of possible evolutionary paths. The one that we see today is just one out of the radically different possibilities. There is nothing special about it. What does this have to do with the formation of complex organs? Let's go back to our example with the monkey and the typewriter.

Assuming that the word "hello" is the only word that the monkey can type is exactly like assuming that the evolutionary path that we see today is the only one that could have happened. To make things a bit more realistic, let's lengthen the word hello to "hello my name is dave" (for simplicity's sake, I took out punctuation and capitalization). It's going to take a little longer for the monkey to type this sentence because it's significantly longer. But what if we take into account that this is not the only sentence that the monkey could type? The earliest parts of the sentence will remain the same in different scenarios, just as the earliest organisms in different evolutionary paths will be very similar. All life forms are carbon based and all life forms need energy, so the basics won't change much. But as life evolves, a huge multitude of possibilities open up. While the first organisms in different paths will probably all be single celled prokaryotes, the organisms several billion years later will be dramatically different, allowing for more workable paths (and correct words for the monkey). Let me give some examples of what else the monkey could type instead of hello my name is dave.

hello my name is davi
hello my name is davr
hello my name is dklr
hello my name is fiem
hello my name jb dufk
hello my nafu uf gjkn
hello mb jfhu fh ijwn
hello jm dfjh efuhfeu
hello sdfkjiu ehufugg
hello fjigjenbufpwkjdf
hello fhigjkdswjfdioef

And so on. The very basic forms of life (the word hello in our example) will remain the same, while more complex organisms can be completely different. This increases the monkey's chances of typing a correct sentence dramatically, and speeds up the process by enormous amounts. The chances of the monkey typing one specific combination of letters of those examples are small, but the chances of the monkey typing any of those combinations is actually a very easy task.

Between natural selection, the fact that so many mutations occur each day, and the astronomically huge number possibilities, the evolution of complex organs such as the eye is a very easy task for evolution. Once again, creationist attacks fall flat on their face."

[medical_guy]

the eye, well, i toled u before that i have many other proofs in medicine that evolution is impossible, but i rather wanted to use the simpler law of entropy, u did not seem to reply to me on refining ur model, the entropy did decrese, ths evolution breaks the second law of thermodynamics, so please reply to this point or agree with it, u can't just say evolution did cause that specific arrangment by natural selection if it is LESS likly to occur by thermodynamics.
Now to the eye which in my point of view, appears to be more used by evolutionists than creationists, molecular biologists estimated that the number of bases that contibute to the formation of the eye is about 100 million bases (in human being), and it is also proven that during the assumed course of natural selection, life tends to go to the better form, this can only logicly occur by the process of mutations in the dna bases during DNA replication. Now it is well known that mutations in the line of species for a certain age change by 1 base every 400 years. This means that after 400 years, human beings of that age will most likly have a GENERAL one base diffrent from us.
However ,in a flat worm, the nmuber of bases estimated to make the eye are about 13 million base, ONLY 10 thousand bases resmble what a human has to make his eye, this means that the number of bases that change from flat worm to human is almost a bit less than 100 million bases, if general mutaions take 400 years for 1 base to change in almost all of the species line, then the time it would take for the eye to change from a flat worm to a human is about 400 *100 million= 40 billion years!!! that is more than the age of the WHOLE universe. And this time is calculated without taking into consideration the possibility of the faliure of a mutation to cause a change to the better form (i.e. faliure of natural selection)
This is only one of the examples in medicine that rule out evolution. SO just as u said creationists fell on their faces, well i guess now evolutionists really fell on their faces this time.
If u wish more medical examples i am ready to give to u more. Yet back to the law of entropy, please give me ur response to this one.

[Jaz]

OMG! :o 21 Pages.. ;)

[RPGlover12]

stop spaming jaz
;)

[Jaz]

I'm not, I just knew this would happen.. ;)

[sk8bloke22]

The Earth is not a "closed system" because it receives energy from the Sun. "Closed system" indicates that it isn't receiving any energy from outside. The sun is so vast (around three hundred thousand times the mass of the Earth) that any increase in order on the sun-powered Earth through living things growing or evolving is far outweighed by the corresponding increase in disorder in the Sun, so no laws of thermodynamics are being violated in the sun-earth system.

Entropy locally decreases (disorder turns into order) in open systems when snowflakes and crystals form, when living things grow from smaller ones. If all decreases in entropy were forbidden, none of these could occur and life itself would be impossible.

[sk8bloke22]

found this, it helps explain why entropy can decrease locally. hence, why the body can be ordered where a decrease of entropy occurs, rather than an increase of disorder.


"need to clear up something I have seen as a common misunderstanding. There are 3, not 2, common types of systems that classical thermodynamics considers: open, closed, and isolated. In an open system matter and energy (heat conduction or radiation) can cross the boundary into the system (just take a system to be anything with a real or imagined boundary to it, in our case the biosphere of the earth), in a closed system energy may flow into or out of the system but not matter, and in an isolated system nothing gets in or out. Now this is very important... it is only in the last case, isolated, that the common form of the second law applies. That is the entropy, S, must always increase or remain constant for the isolated system. When we move to open or closed systems there are other quantities, or what we call thermodynamic potentials, to consider along with entropy. The second law for a closed or open system is simply an equation with entropy in only one of its terms, and entropy may increase or decrease.

Now clearly the biosphere is an open system, the suns energy may enter, matter from space enters, and energy and matter can and does exit. The isolated system form of the second law just does NOT apply, the entropy of the biosphere can and does decrease locally because it is offset by entropy increases elsewhere, the sun for instance. It is really that simple.

Your statistical analogies are ok, but may serve to confuse this issue. The entropy in the statistical form just goes as the natural logarithm of the total number of microstates available to the system, but again there are other thermodynamic potentials, or quantities, to consider other than entropy for closed and open systems and the macroscopic form of the second law still apply."

so there is no violation.

[adi]

OK, this forum has started to repeat itself all over again. The words 'boring' and 'repetitive' do not do this thread justice.

[sk8bloke22]

if u dont wanna read it dont. im finding half the threads on the pj64 boring and repetitive (newbies asking if this does or doesnt work), but the pj64 forum is still very popular. different ppl find different things interesting.

[medical_guy]

Quote from sk8bloke22:
"found this, it helps explain why entropy can decrease locally. hence, why the body can be ordered where a decrease of entropy occurs, rather than an increase of disorder"
Excellent, u have just admitted that the human body is of a lower entropy due to it's complexity and not a higher one. This is what i have proven so far, u first said it was of a higher complexity and entropy, which means we have moved ONE step in the right direction.
Now the new thing u r trying to explain is how could we have a decrease of entropy in an open system, with increasing complexity without the aid of GOD. Well, i actually know very well that there are other factors that contibute to a reaction to occur other than entropy, and that is what chemical reactions are ALL about.
Now it comes basicly to this point, is the extra ordering that is SO HUMUNGUS in the human being, either is made by energy sources like lightning and the sun, or by GOD. This is what i need to prove with other points like what i have just said about the eye above, so please read it carfully. It shows u how the process of evolution needs so much time, that it may exceed the age of this universe.
Secondly, we are missing a VERY IMPORTANT POINT, that the theory of creation explains and evolution does not. What created this universe. The universe is supposed to be a closed system. it could not simply create itself by itself. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. All forms of matter are condensed types of energy. So if matter cannot be created nor destroyed, how could energy of a closed system such as the universe be created by ITSELF.
I will alwyas thank u sk8bloke22 for a nice argument. But i showed u many ways of even chalenging such a point of view. So far evolutionists are struggling to show that their theory is plausable , while creationists have no point against them exept that a human simply wants to get rid of the idea of a SUPER POWER. Please read my argument about the eye and reply to it.

[sytaylor]

ok so medical guy do you absolutley not accept natural selection or what? lets say theres a mutation that leaves ppl blind (prolly are several), now in the wild these people would not have as much chance of surviving to pass on this mutation, but the healthy eyes would continue on. Thus keep ing a species at very least the same.

Then maybe one can see colours very clearly, while the others are colour blind... maybe they would spot predators better, these colour vision creatrues would surley have a better chance of living. Surley this is an evolution. You cannot deny that mutations happen, look at systic fibrosis, thats a bad mutation but we cope with it because of our technology, if it was an extreemlet serious disease those people would not last the test of time as well as those without. Hence not passing on the defunct or, not as good as the rest gene.

[RPGlover12]

Can God tell what you will do in two days? If yes, then is it possible to do some action contrary to what God wishes within the two days? If you can bend God's will, then you are more powerful than God, and hence, God is not omnipotent. If God can't tell what you will do in two days, then God doesn't know everything, and hence, is not omniscent.
ok i got the answer
there is something that u should know about someguy at the islamic ages called abe laheb he was a leader of a tribe called quaresh that was muhammed's (maybe blessing and peace be upon him ) tribe they hated him and they were agianst islam allah sent down a sorah in the holy quran telling them that abe laheb will die an unbeliever and he did , if he just believed in allah and believed in muhammed then we would be all unbelievers of god and allah and there is another story , about a guy who was written in the quran that he will die with his nouse cut and it did happen .
ok i got another one
"about a red indians came to the prophet and told him that we dont believe in god and the earth came all by it self without being created so he told them do u know the the ship that sailed from india to saudia and gave goods they told him who was on the ship he told them it came all by it self they told him how he told them if u dont believe that the ship has been saled all by it self to here then why dont u believe that the earth has been created all by it self without being ruled by god"
ok thats for now guys more to come soon ;)

[sk8bloke22]

and that proves wat exactly rpglover...

the human body is an open system. so quite simply there is nothing in thermodynamics that prevents it from decreasing it's entropy, or order if you will. also u seem to be simply trying to say that since the human body is so complex, that has special thermodynamic impliations, it does not, it just means the body is complex. the space shuttle is governed by the same physical reality as a lawn mower. complexity only implies a higher degree of information content, that is all.

[sk8bloke22]

oh and about the eye. i can get scientific examples too:

"As Frank Zindler (former professor of biology and geology) stated:

"As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes ..., the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design!
Although the human eye would be a scandal if it were the result of divine deliberation, a plausible evolutionary explanation of its absurd construction can be obtained quite easily--even though we can make little use of paleontology (because eyes, like all soft tissues, rarely fossilize)."


oh and btw. 400 years for a 1-base mutation? Thats insane.
...and besides, your "evolution" between flatworm and human is flawed, because humans didn't evolve from flatworms, we only share a common ancestor.

[medical_guy]

well, i have eased up the matters abit. U say that evolution of a human from a flat worm and my calculation is insane, well why? how about evolution of a human from a prokaryote, and this value of 400 years is the lowest value possible, because if according to evolution we started as a prokaryote, it would take even more than that, it could reach to up to 3700 years. That is due to the very low amount of numbers of a specie.
Secondly, i never said natural selection is not possible. However evolutionists have made such a big deal out of it, that they think any thing is possible with it. It is possible that a stronger specie may come from a mutation and survive, but if the original specie was already surviving, why would the new specie be the only one to be sustained. To me, having a better specie is something possible, but it would never cause the sequence of events to run from a simple bacteria to a human being. Moreover, it is even less likly to occur that there is a mutation in a specie that would affect it in any way. Let me ask u, do u think that any mutation would make an effect, do u know that most of the DNA of the human being simply does not give code into a protien, it only forms an intron which is then degraded, and if u want a specific value, it is 95% of our dna not coding. Why do u guys think of such.
Thirdly, to tell u the truth, entropy will always be against the evolutionary theory, entropy is used to sustain a chemical reaction to some extent. It is true that a reaction can occur in an open system which would decrease entropy by increasing in some other place, but this only plausable to some extent only for a limited sequence of reactions, entropy cannot decrease for ever, and it can never cause a complex reaction as what is happening in the human being, that is because at some point, entropy will be so low that even a huge energy would never make it any lower, thus it will go the other way round and will start to increase in entropy once again.
Last but not least, do u people realise what u r trying to prove to me, u r trying to say that the energy of the sun, lightning, formed this whole world, instead of a powerfull god. This simply sounds to me like when u say that the whole human civilization is not created by humans thinking brain, but by a bunch of ants that slowly tried to organise every thing over a billion years. What seems more logical to u.
Ah i forgut one thing, what did u say about the creation of the universe. If the universe is a closed system, then energy would not be created nor destroyed within it, secondly all solid matter within this universe is a condensed form of energy, so matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so do u think that this universe was created by itself through another process of evolution, at least when i believe in god, i believe that there is a creator to this universe, please give me a reply about this.

[RPGlover12]

well u guys are all talking about the science we want to talk about the existance of god ok here is one about the final book of allah the holy quran it got some miracles that even science now just discovered and i'll tell u some of them i dont remember them all
1 - it got every little detail and big one too it even got the attack on america in it
2 - it got somestuff that the new science just discovered now like an e.g " allah said that the embryo in his mother neutress his soul will get down at a certain day(sorry dont remember the day) and there is a scientest who wanted to see this and he even measured it with the hours minutes and he found out that whatever allah wants anything to happen it will
thats another proof for u sk8bloke and many others are coming
3 - the judgement day " allah said that the judgement day wont come unless the minor and major signs shows up " and thats true like allah said that in the quran from 1400 years that when the judgement day comes near these signs will show up
e.g women will look like men and men look like women . e.g 2 : killin will increase e.g 3 : earth quakes will increase e.g 4 : any one who is passing near a grave he will say i wish in ur place , there are more i just dont remember

ok sytaylor and reznor007 before u talk abuot religion and islam first read it from a to z then come to talk to me and u'll see ok so dont just go like that say that religion was created by man maybe some religions like boda but islam jewish christian were the only true ones but now the only true one is islam no other religion so before u talk about religion go study it first cause u dont know anything about it nor any other religion
and reznor007 i've got something to tell u " u lost u're faith in ur religion which is christian because u didn't believe in it because it was changed from the old days and still now changed so u lost u're faith in islam

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by medical_guy
Last but not least, do u people realise what u r trying to prove to me, u r trying to say that the energy of the sun, lightning, formed this whole world, instead of a powerfull god. This simply sounds to me like when u say that the whole human civilization is not created by humans thinking brain, but by a bunch of ants that slowly tried to organise every thing over a billion years. What seems more logical to u.


umm the human brain did not create civilisation, in a clever way you just contradicted yourself... humans like ants slow contributed and built society through hard work. It is still nowhere near the level it could potentially reach. The human brain aided in civilisations arision to its currentl levels but it did NOT create it directly such as an omnipitant being would. As such your example is good proof for my point. theres nothing to say there is no driving force or higher power out there... but personally i think the driving force is life's will to survive. Where this came from i dont know.

Do you accept that surley humans were not the first creatures on earth? There is no evidence of them til VERY rescently... if the history of earth was a day we'd have popped up in the 10 seconds before midnight. As such why would it take so long for an omnipitant being to create this environment for us? Is it that the reason we are here as we are, is because we are veru sucessful at adapting to earth in its current form, however if it was suddenley plunged unerwater surley the fish would survive into the future far better?

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by RPGlover12

ok sytaylor and reznor007 before u talk abuot religion and islam first read it from a to z then come to talk to me and u'll see ok so dont just go like that say that religion was created by man maybe some religions like boda but islam jewish christian were the only true ones but now the only true one is islam no other religion so before u talk about religion go study it first cause u dont know anything about it nor any other religion
and reznor007 i've got something to tell u " u lost u're faith in ur religion which is christian because u didn't believe in it because it was changed from the old days and still now changed so u lost u're faith in islam

i dont care wether its been changed or not, evertying you have quoted sounds like it was written by man

[RPGlover12]

cause u didn't read it if u did read it from a to z u'll see and u dont have faith because u can't think of it and u can't proof that there is no god but i can proof it and am sure just if u believed that there is god i can proof the unity of god and islam and u dont want to believe cause u're afraid and u're shyed of islam am sure of that cause u say " why the heck should i read the quran " cause u dont know what does it contain and u know that if u read it u'll believe in it and u dont want that

[sytaylor]

no you cant proove god exists, thats my whole point, you absolutley cannot! just as i cant proove there is a god, can you accept that? i accept you believe in god, but that is different from knowing god exists, for that you have to be able to proove it to others.

[Acorn]

/em smells butter.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then you're not from anandtech :)

This is quite the Butter of emutalk.

[RPGlover12]

ok am going to tell u a site about allah and islam http://www.thewaytotruth.org/godsexistenceandunity/whataretheessence.html go this site i found out it was a great usefull site

[medical_guy]

"umm the human brain did not create civilisation, in a clever way you just contradicted yourself... humans like ants slow contributed and built society through hard work. It is still nowhere near the level it could potentially reach. The human brain aided in civilisations arision to its currentl levels but it did NOT create it directly such as an omnipitant being would. As such your example is good proof for my point. theres nothing to say there is no driving force or higher power out there... but personally i think the driving force is life's will to survive. Where this came from i dont know. "

i never meant by this a human CREATED IT. It is ment to be an example, but i meant by it the speed of arrangement and the possibility of trial and error.
Secondly, "life's will to survive"...... this sound to me much worse than believing in GOD,
thirdly, why did u not reply to me about the creation of the universe, did u read my last post to the end?

[Josep]

jeeeeez i really can't keep up with this forum, and i keep coming up with excuses, yet i have some things to post later today, some good poems that are interesting, trust me, totally relate to some of the people talking in this thread, just check later today, i don't have time to type 'em out:) AND NO i don't mean poems i wrote, something from some philisophical poet writer:) Gibran

[DrGoggle]

Man! I thought I'd be able to read through the thread to get caught up on what the current issue was, but after page 14 I had enough =).

Since this is a debate, and I'm a big fan of talking, and everyone's throwin' in their 2 cents, maybe I could toss in a penny or two. I can't prove anyhting by just talk, right? I don't think that any amount of arguing I do would be able to convince anyone of anything. I will, however, share my opinion. You can take it or leave it. I'm cool with either.

My opinion as of right now is that God is real. I don't know a whole lot of science, or physics, and I definately don't know enough mathematically to prove my belief. I'm working my way through the Bible, and it looks good to me so far. Some things that have help bolster my faith in God personally were the beauty of nature (We live a little out in the country with some really nice fields and lots of deer) and the very concept of mathematics (how all these number tricks and things work out is amazing). I just feel like such things were too big of a magnitude to have perchance worked out by themselves.

I do call myself a Christian. I believe God wants to have a personal relationship with his peeps. Now, you may or may not have already found 100's of ways to argue for or against my beliefs. And that's all good. If I didn't question why I believe what I believe, what good would I be?

[medical_guy]

DrGoggle, U SAID A significant word, "the beauty of nature", i love a simple argument, i wonder how many aprriciate the beauty of nature as a clue to GODs presence, could all of this be made by itself??? i won't add a single word to this post to make it simple as DrGoggle

[sk8bloke22]

ok medical guy seems u r getting things a bit mixed. firstly ur using one of the main misconceptions with thermodynamics concerning energy.
from talk.origins:

"There is no need to postulate an energy conversion mechanism. Thermodynamics correlates, with mathematical equations, information relating to the interaction of heat and work. It does not speculate as to the mechanisms involved. The energy conversion mechanism can not be expressed in terms of mathematical relationships or thermodynamic laws. Although it is reasonable to assume that complex energy conversion mechanisms actually exist, the manner in which these may operate is outside the scope of thermodynamics. Assigning an energy conversion mechanism to thermodynamics is simply a ploy to distort and pervert the true nature of thermodynamics. "

thermodynamics is mathamatics. u cannot disprove mathmatics....thats a fact. u say that u find that the sun's energy being an influenece in our origins as more ludicrious that god creating the universe. well i dont see how. most of our existance and survival derrives from the sun's energy. photosynthesis keeps the plants alive, which in turn provide us the air we breathe. sun's energy is used in natural gases and fossil fuels, which provide us with the needs for our daily lives. it doesnt answer everything, but it gives us an indication of our origins. u r actually further missing the point by assuming that evolutionists believe that evolution answers entirely how the world began. evolution is an observation, and thus scientific. yet thermodynamics is fact as its based on maths......thermodynamics shows that evolution is a capable process. observation of evolution on a small scale shows that it works. it doesnt suggest how the entire universe was created, as the universe, or the layer surrounding the universe is a closed system. u ask how a closed system can be created...well theres no definite answer, just as how can god come into existance. well infinity must be considered as it is a reality in maths. maths proves infinity. a number line has no boundries...u can count from 1,2,3...for ever. furthermore, there are various equations that lack boundries. if infinity is fact, then so is the possibility of a closed system existing. seems more reliable than the metaphysical idea of a creator. so that means ur saying that god brought us here in a whole form, i.e as Adam, or where we cells or wat. this is neva answered by religion.

theres so much on the net about why thermodynamics isnt a violation. heres something from a forum

"Even a creationist should be able to agree that the process of reproduction and growth of any particular organism does not violate thermodynamics...the fact is, it's observed, so it can't. All the "organization", "complexity", what have you, of that organism has been constructed out of organic raw material. If 90% of all life was destroyed by some catastrophic event, but favorable conditions returned afterward, the biosphere would be able to regenerate itself without violating any physical principles.

Now, the only thing that evolution adds to this is that, sometimes, reproduction is not perfect. A copying error in DNA occurs that results in an individual having an allele of some gene that did not exist in the parent(s). This has also been observed, so it also can not violate thermodynamics. That individual goes through the very same process of growth that all other life does.

Where, then, is the violation?"

and rpglover, u ask why debate science if the debate is on the existance of god. well the answer is that science is the best way to prove something. maths even better. if u can scientifically prove that god exists - then its pretty convincing, if u can mathmatically, without any flaws, prove god......then god must exist. but using a book full of metaphysicall ideas shows nothing. u can argue wat eva u want with the book, which is its one fundalmental flaw. as the quaran says there is a god/allah, then we know how we were made and he must exist....thats the problem with faith, u must except something as fact to make it true.

[sk8bloke22]

Originally posted by DrGoggle
I can't prove anyhting by just talk, right? I don't think that any amount of arguing I do would be able to convince anyone of anything. I will, however, share my opinion. You can take it or leave it. I'm cool with either.


u r 100% correct. but i dont think any of us r really gonna listen to that, including me, so this is gonna go on for ever.......until martin's shiny new server crashes with overload. :)

[RPGlover12]

even if the new server installed i will continue this thread i added the two sites to the fav. ;)

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by medical_guy
DrGoggle, U SAID A significant word, "the beauty of nature", i love a simple argument, i wonder how many aprriciate the beauty of nature as a clue to GODs presence, could all of this be made by itself??? i won't add a single word to this post to make it simple as DrGoggle

the beauty of nature is a sign of our appreciation for our surroundings, why does it proove god? it prooves that we like some of our surroundings... just beacuse it doesnt make sense to you that anything else could have happened besides a dinvine creation doesnt mean that is the answer

[sytaylor]

Originally posted by sk8bloke22

and rpglover, u ask why debate science if the debate is on the existance of god. well the answer is that science is the best way to prove something. maths even better. if u can scientifically prove that god exists - then its pretty convincing, if u can mathmatically, without any flaws, prove god......then god must exist. but using a book full of metaphysicall ideas shows nothing. u can argue wat eva u want with the book, which is its one fundalmental flaw. as the quaran says there is a god/allah, then we know how we were made and he must exist....thats the problem with faith, u must except something as fact to make it true.

bingo, systematically prooving something is far less open to interpritation than metaphysicall ideas (eg suggestions by a book), however the disadvantage is that it doesnt give people wonderous stories of power and love, which to be hoenst... i think there are people that need to hear those. prooving god doesnt exist mathematically would still be doubted by a very LARGE number of people, simply because of how society revolves around it so much and that people refuse to let go of the idea there is a god simply because it makes sense to them.

[RPGlover12]

so u want sytaylor a scientific proof

[sytaylor]

id like scientific proof, but anything tangible ideally

(ie not a tree supposedley "beding over like a prophet" ;) that can be put down PURLEY to coincidence)... that kind of evidence only seems believeale because you already believe... to me its just a tree

[DuDe]

You know people, this all thing is ain`t going anywhere. You can`t proove the existance of god, and you can approve his absence, so y`all are basically arguing over nothing. Basically, the only thing that I`ve seen here by now is missionary.

[DrGoggle]

Originally posted by sytaylor


the beauty of nature is a sign of our appreciation for our surroundings, why does it proove god? it prooves that we like some of our surroundings... just beacuse it doesnt make sense to you that anything else could have happened besides a dinvine creation doesnt mean that is the answer

Good point! I mean, I still do take creation as part of what convinced me. It doesn't have to convince you, though. =)

[sk8bloke22]

Originally posted by DrGoggle


Good point! I mean, I still do take creation as part of what convinced me. It doesn't have to convince you, though. =)

its all about skating....none of u would understand that....???

[StonedConker]

i was thinking....and thinking.....so many stuff to post here about this subject but after all i realized that i can't speak English so well to describe those the right way so i just laugh loud about the thouht i've made:D

[RPGlover12]

ok now i understand the jewish a little better than before
ok here is what i understood
in ur torah it said that there will be a another prophet after called messiah believe in him and when jesus came to this earth u didn't believe in him am i right tell now so u think that there is another messiah that will show up well ur wrong sk8bloke or whoever jewish in here will this is what is true the messiah is jesus and there is no prophet after muhammed and u think he is coming at the end of time well ur still wrong about it cause whoever comes after muhammed is a fake prophet and u'll believe in the antichrist claiming to be allah and the messiah so all the jewish will believe in him and say that ur allah and he will do miracles that nobody had like kill somebody and makehim reunite again and became alive and revive his father and mother and its not really his mother or father its the demons who are his mother and father anyway go back to our talking u'll believe in him cause it was written in ur book thats why u dont believe in muhammed ? am i right ???

[sk8bloke22]

nope. i dont believe in judasim, pretty much made it clear that i dont believe in god, which means i cant really believe in my religion and all the bullshit it comes with. i understand that i am jewish, thats my identity...as in the holocaust even the most unreligious jews got persecuted, so i cant run away from the fact that i am jewish. i just dont believe in it as a truth. and wats to stop me saying that, ur book RPGlover is totally wrong and the torah is right. obviously i wouldnt say that as it is a pointless arguement. the way something is truly concrete evidence is if it can be proved with concrete maths. otherwise, its just unreliable in proving it as fact. Nazi's saw Hitler's Mein Kampf as the truth...it clearly wasnt, but its the same idea. Hitler presented some metaphysical ideas that made sense to those in Germany ( i study Germany History so i know quite a lot about this). Now we would argue completely against it...now evolutionists do the same with creationalist theory. (and visa-versa).

but yeh, im meant to believe that the messiah will come and restore the temple that was destroyed (the temple did exist, the Western Wall that still stands is the only main part that still remains since its destruction).

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by sk8bloke22
Nazi's saw Hitler's Mein Kampf as the truth...it clearly wasnt, but its the same idea. Hitler presented some metaphysical ideas that made sense to those in Germany

i think this point is very alike with religion. very few nazis actually believed in the occult and "race supremacy" ideas that hitler made up. the thing is all this was pure propaganda to justify the idea of a master race.
however most nazi followers didn't believe in these things they simply followed hitler because he promised them a better life.

i am german (thu i am in the us right now), so i heard about this all my life.

in religion however i believe - according to people i know - don't actually believe in everything in their religion but mostly the principles of it. it's like with u, that u only believe in few parts of ur religion (if i got that right with the messia and so on - if not correct me) in opposition to what fundamentalists advocate.

as for me i don't believe in god, or anything at all besides the principles of socialism according to karl marx.

religion can bring people together but often times it divides them.

[RPGlover12]

Originally posted by sk8bloke22
nope. i dont believe in judasim, pretty much made it clear that i dont believe in god, which means i cant really believe in my religion and all the bullshit it comes with. i understand that i am jewish, thats my identity...as in the holocaust even the most unreligious jews got persecuted, so i cant run away from the fact that i am jewish. i just dont believe in it as a truth. and wats to stop me saying that, ur book RPGlover is totally wrong and the torah is right. obviously i wouldnt say that as it is a pointless arguement. the way something is truly concrete evidence is if it can be proved with concrete maths. otherwise, its just unreliable in proving it as fact. Nazi's saw Hitler's Mein Kampf as the truth...it clearly wasnt, but its the same idea. Hitler presented some metaphysical ideas that made sense to those in Germany ( i study Germany History so i know quite a lot about this). Now we would argue completely against it...now evolutionists do the same with creationalist theory. (and visa-versa).

but yeh, im meant to believe that the messiah will come and restore the temple that was destroyed (the temple did exist, the Western Wall that still stands is the only main part that still remains since its destruction). how can u prove me that my book is wrong sk8bloke when its the one that hasn't been changed from when it came
and if u wanna be sure of it there is the first quran in the whole world in turkey its still there as just as our now book

[sk8bloke22]

Originally posted by RPGlover12
how can u prove me that my book is wrong sk8bloke when its the one that hasn't been changed from when it came
and if u wanna be sure of it there is the first quran in the whole world in turkey its still there as just as our now book

hmmm...ull neva if that is 100% true. and ur right i cant 100% prove the quaran wrong. thats not the point. doesnt mean its correct. in that sense u cant prove the torah or bible wrong, i know that some rabbis justify things for judasim over islam...just as u hav done with the quaran, sayign the quaran says this...which proves judasim wrong. it means nothing. absolutely nothing. the fact that ive (using mostly oother ppls material) been able to prove that evolution is true is different. ive used scientific means to do so, the fact that it is easy for me to locate mathmatical therom concerning the laws of thermodynamics even further supports my point. u cant argue with maths.

and 2fast4u...Marxist theory is very interesting. just finished learning it at school. i mean it is also totally flawed, if i was a socialist i would agree more with gramsci than Marx, but still he has been a very influencial person in world history. its just a shame lenin and stalin went and ruined the image of his theory. now Marxism is associated with the practically fascist regime that stalin led.

definitely agree with Marx's idea of flase consciousness...religion is completely that.

[2fast4u]

Originally posted by sk8bloke22
its just a shame lenin and stalin went and ruined the image of his theory. now Marxism is associated with the practically fascist regime that stalin led.

well we could kinda argue about this now. while lenin, as the leader of the revolution, was a true follower of marx' theory (he was a former student of him) and attempted to build a socialist society in russia, which never succeeded - stalin was a ruthless fascist who mistreated communism and used it as disguise to build a fascist dictatorship. it's an irony of history that socialism, which should have brought the beginning to a better world ("Jesus Christ was the first socialist, the first one to seek a better life for mankind" -Michael Gorbatchev) was used as such. i believe lenin on the side of the "true" socialists like che guevara and rosa luxemburg.

totalitary systems like china or cuba did and still do great damage to the word "socialism" even thu neither one these are actually socialist states.

[RPGlover12]

Originally posted by sk8bloke22


hmmm...ull neva if that is 100% true. and ur right i cant 100% prove the quaran wrong. thats not the point. doesnt mean its correct. in that sense u cant prove the torah or bible wrong, i know that some rabbis justify things for judasim over islam...just as u hav done with the quaran, sayign the quaran says this...which proves judasim wrong. it means nothing. absolutely nothing. the fact that ive (using mostly oother ppls material) been able to prove that evolution is true is different. ive used scientific means to do so, the fact that it is easy for me to locate mathmatical therom concerning the laws of thermodynamics even further supports my point. u cant argue with maths.


well i can proof that the torah is not all of it is true buti can't prove 100 percent of it maybe because now torah isn't changed much because u've made the final edit is ur book but in the old days there were many copies
ok lets go with proof 1-ok quran was never changed so that means that it can't be untrue and torah has changed alittle so i can prove that their been somestuff untrue
2-there are many things that new science just discovered and its been written in the quran
3-quran and muhammed(may allah peace and blessing be upon him) everything that they said was true like muhammed said that there will be an age that most muslims will be unreligous and all of the minor signs will happen and after that the major signs and it did happen most of the arabian countries are unreligous like Egypt lebanon , syria , united arab emirates , and iraq those are the one who are a little unreligous but others like saudia etc.. are very religous so he said the truth
and i told u before about the scientest who researched about the soul that comes to the baby at a certain day and he found out that it was true

[sk8bloke22]

Originally posted by RPGlover12
[B
and i told u before about the scientest who researched about the soul that comes to the baby at a certain day and he found out that it was true [/B]

wheres this? science isnt fact. its an observation of events that MUST be open to objection. otherwise it cannot be science. to me that doesnt even sound like a scientific experiement, as science has neva found evidence for a soul. so i definitely do not believe it. if u can find on the net, i would love to see it.

back to Marx...

i dont think u can completely claim lenin as a true 'Marxist' as he was only concentrated on the revolution, and it is not really known how far he believed in the 'withering away of the state'. although Marx claimed his observation of history to prove the 'inevitable' future. a claim that breaches on the same lines of religion in that he is presented an axium or truth that cant really be sufficiently proved as definite. lenin didnt believe the revolution to be inevitable, and like gramsci saw that history can be influenced by humans. so im not sure how close lenin was following his revolution to Marxist theory. although, with out a doubt, lenin did not want stalin to take over. apparently on his deathbed he pleaded for stalin not to become leader.

also quite interestingly class conflict is apparently going exactly as Marx predicted. according to some recent surveys and economical observations, the gap between economical classes is, in fact, widening. which would suggest that class conflict is infact worsening. also this whole thing with the 'middle-class' could be argued as another capatilist sign of flase consciousness.

Marxist theory is very much flawed due to a failure by Marx to fully explain the revolutionary period and exactly the 'withering away of the state'. it seems difficult, for me anyway, to see that once in power the dictatorship will wither away and give up their power. as lord acton said 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely' .



....2fast4u, plz keep this up, this is good revision for my exams coming up at the end of the month.

[2fast4u]

actually i doubt that the path to revolution that marx described is accurate. based on the situation of the early 20. century and the major european powers as well as (later) the united states in an imperialist conflict marx advocated that history must lead to the proletarian revolution in every country one after one. at the end of this process is a world unified under socialism which lives in equality and solidarity to each other.

history told us that the process attempted to start (persons like lenin and trotzki succeeded with the revolution in russia and similar attempts in germany where almost successful --> see also the bavarian republic) but wasn't successful in the end.

now we are heading to a similar situation like in marx' time: the great powers of the world (usa, france, germany, england - deja vu) are moving on to imperialist activities. the so-called "war against terror" is only one fact.

u are right with saying that the class conflict is getting worse. in fact it's just showing up again.

marx wasn't right with his thesis that revolution is unavoidable and lenin was right not to act according to this thesis.
lenin also replaced the marxist' theory of a completely state-controlled economy with the nep (new economy policy, 1921). i think no ideal can be applied completely. the details of marxism are often times theory and not appliable, i admit that as a socialist. the principles of marxism, socialism however are equality, freedom, democratic rights and solidarity which lenin respected and practiced in the early times of the ussr.

(phew. im really kinda running out of vocabulary with this complex subject right now)

if u will im gonna write about the failures of the 3. international but that later.

[2fast4u]

additions:

there are the different forms of socialism which include revisionism which doesn't attempt the revolution and only shares the power with the capitalists. stalinism (sadly enough) which is a completely perverted form of socialism. and so-called communism which is an autocratic form of socialism.

i personally advocate liberal socialism which is a mix from revisionism, marxism, communism and anarchism.

[Jaz]

I think I'll lock this topic now.. it's eating space.. ;)

[sk8bloke22]

why, its a good topic?

yeh evolutionary socialism. (such a boring topic, goddamn evolutionaries..), evo socsialism has quite just become part of liberalism, in britain anyway, where u get ppl like Blair, originating from a socialist party, still saying "we need to build a collective community" but then going onto complete new-right conservative thinking, which is basically step back to classical liberalism, i.e free-market economy.

i suppose the democratic socialists like Tony Benn had the most revolutionary stance out of all the Evo-Socialists . now they;re just backbench MPs. :colgate: u probably hav no idea wat im saying as this is all british politics.

[Jaz]

Originally posted by sk8bloke22
why, its a good topic?Yeah, so great it's going nowhere.. 20-odd pages later, and where has it got us? Nowhere.

[2fast4u]

it's pretty controversial. but meanwhile we kinda changed the direction (my fault, sorry ;)).

[sk8bloke22]

the topic wasnt gonna go anywhere in the first place. the arguement about god is neva gonna be settled.

[2fast4u]

true. i ain't gonna start arguing 'bout that. we could make a new topic and discuss socialism & capitalism ... ;)