If you don't believe in evolution, you also can't believe in...

[spuriousmonkey]

Organisms mutate their own genomes! They don't even need god for that. That's right. They don't even need radiation to induce mutations in their genome.

How can this be possible?

Every time a cell copies its own genome when it divides the enzyme complex that makes a new copy from the original template makes mistakes. That's right. The cellular machinery makes mistakes and induces changes in the DNA.

And yes, there are enzymes that try to correct mistakes, but they are not perfect.

And do we think god directs every DNA copying and proofreading protein complex in our body?

Well, the hand of god must be really tiny in this event. It hasn't been seen yet on LM or EM pics. We surely need an antibody raised against god so we can stain his influence directly.

 

[Idle Mind]

We surely need an antibody raised against god so we can stain his influence directly.

LMAO!! Molecular humour! Most excellent.

 

[Michael]

We surely need an antibody raised against god so we can stain his influence directly.

Goat anti-God Hand Cy3

 

[Flores]

You say you can't relate to my sub-intelligent theories, well I can't relate to your religious theories as to how we are where we are today. My parents may be catholics and I may have been brought up a catholic, just like you were brought up a Muslim, but at least my parents understand scientific theories better than you appear to. I don't have any complexes about my origins Flores, nor do I have any complexes about my religious upbringing or about my parents. I'm proud of the way my parents allowed me to grow up and learn all sides of all equations before I made up my mind as to what I believed in. If I marry a non-catholic, my parents wouldn't give a shit and they or I would never expect that my better half convert either. And I can assure you that if you had parents like mine, you'd be a lot more educated and a lot more open minded than you are today.

Your failure to understand religion implies to me that you are prone to be an extremist...Your extreme stand toward religion is tale telling of how much you share with fanatic religious minds. You running away to the opposite side doesn't make you any less extreme and certainly doesn't credit your parents didly squats for educating you.....assuming you have a clue what the word education means.

As far as open mindness, thanks a alot, I have seen enough the results of people carelessly opening their mind to others to freely wash and dry them. religious fanatics and the most open minded people, there mind is so open, you can see straight throught to their brains.

 

[Bells]

Your failure to understand religion implies to me that you are prone to be an extremist...Your extreme stand toward religion is tale telling of how much you share with fanatic religious minds. You running away to the opposite side doesn't make you any less extreme and certainly doesn't credit your parents didly squats for educating you.....assuming you have a clue what the word education means.

Ah Flores, wrong again. You are silly enough to assume that I know nothing about religion, well that's your little belief and I'm not about to waste my time telling you otherwise. This thread has proven well enough that you couldn't grasp basic concepts even if it was jammed into your head, so I'm going to keep this simple for you.

As for my being an extremist. HAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAAA That's so funny it warrants a laugh. You have been the only one in here beating your little religious extremist drum screaming out 'God made me', well you and PM anyway, which really says something in regards to extremism. I know what my religious beliefs are Flores, you on the other hand do not appear to do so. The constant bickering that we are all witness to between you and PM shows that you flip back and forth in regards to your religious belief, just so long as it suits you personally. For example, the religion you claim to belong to and believe in tells you that you should dress modestly, you disregard that and call it chauvanistic. But you then dare to apply that religion to other issues and claim that it is your religion. Let me tell you something about religion Flores, you either believe in the whole of it, or you believe in none.

I've never said that I have run away from my religion. Fact is, and read this carefully now as I know that your simple little mind may have trouble grasping it, I don't believe in religion at all. Never have. Did you get that? Be it Christians, Muslim, Hindu, etc, I do not believe in religion. Why? Because I refuse to be so blind that I'd believe all that a little book tells me and rely only on faith to believe what's written. Is there a God? Who knows... who really gives a shit. I only believe what I see in front of me Flores, that's it. I do not now, nor have I ever sat there claiming that what is written in the Bible or Quran is true just because it's in that little book. I live my life in a decent manner and if there is something after death, then I shall be judged there. I do not prattle on like you do claiming that God has created me for one simple reason, there is no proof and nothing to show that he has. If you wish to follow blindly like the PM's of this world, then good for you as it is your right. But do not dare assume that you know something when in actual fact you know nothing. And as for you questioning whether I know what the word 'education' means? Well I only have to look at you Flores, and see a perfect case of where there is a complete lack of it.

Now to you referring to my parents as extremists? They are Catholic, just as you are a Muslim. So before you to dare to refer to them as extremists, I'd suggest you look at yourself and at your parents. The only difference between my parents and you Flores is that they do not follow blindly or believe everything that they are told or read, nor do they flib back and forth like a yoyo, as you've been doing in this thread.

religious fanatics and the most open minded people, there mind is so open, you can see straight throught to their brains.

I guess that explains the breeze coming out of your ears Flores. So what would you want people to believe in? Believe as you do? Claim that God created them when there is no proof whatsoever that he did? People who instead prefer to believe in evolution, that's not called fanatism Flores, that's called having a functioning mind and actually using it and seeing what is there, without being so blind as to discount all that could be. As to being open minded and you calling them empty headed? I once recall you referring to yourself as being open minded. Do you see where I'm heading with this Flores? Being open minded means that you are open to all possibilities, without discounting or refusing all. That is what open minded means Flores. If you see that as being empty headed, then I guess we can refer to you as a close minded nitwit who refuses to see anything that is beyond her very nose lest she finds the real truth. Instead you prefer to only believe in what you deem to be safe and real, regardless of how flimsy and unreal it all actually is, regardless of the fact that there is no proof, regardless of what is in front of her and is real. That is what a fanatical is Flores. A fanatic, Flores, believes only in what they want to believe, even if the truth is slapping them in the face. Do you understand Flores? There is no proof that God created us as you seem to believe, and until such proof can be found or discovered, those of us with a functioning brain prefer to believe in what is real and what is tangible.

 

[Flores]

Do you understand Flores? There is no proof that God created us as you seem to believe, and until such proof can be found or discovered, those of us with a functioning brain prefer to believe in what is real and what is tangible.

I'm only entertaining this because underneath this latest brain fart on your side, you have been a different animal. You mostly seemed balanced on your views, yet lately you're giving me a clear indication that you're either acting out of your chart or that you've been lying all along. Perhaps you're getting more comfortable on this site and we are now seeing the real you..I must say, I prefer the innocence and sincerity of the ex-cautious blind little kitty that I thought Bells was.

I believe that I have never before discussed with you the extent of my belive in god....this is obvious from your unwelcomed unappreciated efforts to liken me to PM. Am I going to educate you? No, You are way comfortable in the dim light that you have placed yourself in. Your pupils are fully dilated by the lack of light offered by your adopted theory "evolution-the answer to creation". Now, I'm in full light and thus I'm squinting as hell, my eyes are barely opened, so I don't expect to open your eyes to anything....The most I can do is drag you to the light and reverse the dialation of your eyes, yet you clearly don't want that...you compare "squinting to ignorance"...and do you know what that makes you...."an educated fool". You are the expert of your ignorant self created concepts and I'm the ignorant compared to the bigger self supported truth....that's why I'd rather be me than you anytime of the day. You have overly dialated eyes and you're happy with it. You claim that you will never go back to the days of squinting...and guess what, I'll never go back to the dialated pupils, because I know that it's fake.

The more light you are exposed to, the more your eyes will likely squint and close.....much like mine is starting to do. I'm standing infront of strongest rays of truth, and I'm barely able to open my eyes, while you are gloating about how well you see in the middle of darkness and dimmest of lights...Do you now see the difference between me and you?

 

[John Connellan]

Is this like, the longest thread ever?!

 

[Flores]

If you feel that this level of control leaves the door open for a deliberate act of God, that's fine although I will point out that this is simply a 'God of the gaps' argument. You're also arguing for guided evolution and not against Evolution. It also brings to mind the question about what kind of God deliberately causes cancer and other horrible defects.

I'm definetly not pointing out to a "god of gaps". I'm pointing out to a god that creates a system that can be maintained and sustained. I'm talking about a god that soft-wires his creation so perfectly to adapt without the obvious intervention. Just like a perfect computer program that is so soft-coded to work for so many scenarios without having to call the IT tech every second to modify the program... Where do you see the "god of gaps" thing.

Second, cancer and other horrible defects are part of life. They are not necessarily bad, only you seem to view them from a tunnel vision. You also seem to put all your eggs and value to life as you know it on this earth. You don't believe in a soul nor do you believe that we always existed and will always exist.

The important fact is that mutations occur with equal (as far as I am aware) frequency along the entire length of the DNA sequence. Any portion can and does change. Enough of these changes through enough generations provides for the mathematical space for all known life forms to develop.

If you you want to go down that route, then my demands will be heavy.

1-First, how old is our earth?
2- How many species are availalble on earth?
3- A time line and chart clearly showing how all these mutations could have happened in 4.5 billion years..
4- A chart showing the number of generation per species required to mature one set of species to the next.
5- And please consider the following

As Fred Hoyle puts it, in The Intelligent Universe: ‘Just how excruciatingly slowly genetic information accumulates by trial and error can be seen from a simple example. Suppose, very conservatively, that a particular protein is coded by a tiny segment in the DNA blueprint, just ten of the chemical links in its double helix. Without all ten links being in the correct sequence, the protein from the DNA doesn’t work. Starting with all the ten wrong, how many generations of copying must elapse before all the links—and hence the protein—come right through random errors? The answer is easily calculated from the rate at which DNA links are miscopied, a figure which has been established by experiment.

‘To obtain the correct sequence of ten links, by miscopying, the DNA would have to reproduce itself on an average, about a hundred million members of the species all producing offspring, it would still take a million generations before even a single member came up with the required rearrangement. And if that sounds almost within the bounds of possibility, consider what happens if a protein is more complicated and the number of DNA links needed to code for it jumps from ten to twenty. A thousand billion generations would then be needed, and if one hundred links are required (as is often the case), the number of generations would be impossibly high because no organism reproduces fast enough to achieve this. The situation for the neo-Darwinism theory is evidently hopeless. It might be possible for genes to be modified slightly during the course of evolution, but the evolution of specific sequences of DNA links of any appreciable length is clearly not possible’ (p. 110)

I'm not sure what you're after here. Probability is a mathematical expression of data. Yes, it's historically based but it's also a useful tool in prediction.

Probability without a liability and certainty analysis is worth didly squat....Thus, whenever we talk about probability, you need to discuss probable time frame and schedule. What is the probability and time frame involved in encoding properly one protien cell and how old is our earth?

This delves more into Abiogenesis than it does Evolution. We don't know how the first cell(s) evolved but there are a number of possibilities. The facts are that cells exist and that genetic changes occur.

But, the two are intertwined...and can't be separated. If you are willing to say that you don't know how the first cells existed, then you have to say that you don't how species were developed from that very first cell that you know nothing of it's origin. Your logic here is fuzzy and backwards...You must start from the beginning and work your way to the end...not start at the end and disect the problem back to the beginning and then say that's how things really happened....That's wrong...That's you and other scientists breaking the problem into bits and pieces that may not fit together as perfectly as you think.

Yes, it can. The form of both ants and humans is determined by their genetic sequence, given that this sequence can change, be added to, or subtracted from all that is required are the appropriate changes.

You are using very big words very liberally. "ADDED TO", "SUBTRACTED FROM"??? Hell, I can solve all my problems that way very easily. I can even assume that I'm in a relation to a mountain only if you take the bejesus out of me and leave me with mere carbon particles...You can also make a mountain a person, by adding to it the components of a person?????? Please Rath.....Is that what evolution is about....A gross assumption and extrapolation of what we see?

It doesn't. Mutations filtered by natural selection have resulted in the evolution of human beings.

I don't buy this.....Humans exist in all different shapes and forms and none of them is more or less human than one another. Natural selection may favor the tall or the short, the whites or the blacks, but it will not cause a species cross over...Never in a million years... Natural selection plays by a much stricter rules that you attribute to it. This is how it works. Natural selection is a weeding out process, it's not an addition process. Mutation filtered by natural selection can only lead to extinction....Look at your odds and probability carefully and you'll arrive to the doom extinction situation.

Okay, let's get back to the basics then. Do you believe that all life forms in their amazing complexity and variation are defined by the structure of their DNA?

I love the basics, and the answer is YES....BUT

The fact of the matter is, without taking a Creator into account, one cannot give a valid explanation of life. There is simply no other theory which fits in with the pattern of the universe. Being inconsistent with the nature of life, other theories fail to take firm root. It is indeed significant that eminent scholars from various fields have thought fit to contribute to an Encyclopaedia of Ignorance, which has been published in London. The book has the following introduction:

‘In the Encyclopaedia of Ignorance some 60 well-known scientists
survey different fields of research, trying to point out
significant gaps in our knowledge of the world.’

What this work really amounts to is an academic acknowledgement of the fact that the Maker of the world has fashioned it in such a way that it just cannot be explained by any mechanical interpretation. For instance, as John Maynard Smith has written, the theory of evolution is beset with certain ‘built-in’ problems. There appears to be no solution to these problems, for all we have to go by are theories. And without concrete evidence, there is no way we can back up our theories

To a certain extent yes. But the environment is also subject to even greater forces that life has no ability to affect... such as the laws of chemistry and physics and remote events like the energy output of the Sun.

This is where you and I differ. Repeat the following to yourself. "Physics and Chemistry don't don't dictate behavior. They're merely one of the many tools of understanding why things behave as they do." Flores, 2004

 

[Michael]

As Fred Hoyle puts it, in The Intelligent Universe: ‘Just how excruciatingly slowly genetic information accumulates by trial and error can be seen from a simple example.

Take a jar of bacteria add 0.1% antibiotic. . . . repeat each day for 1 week increasing by 5%. do this for 6 days and take a 1 day break and - just like god - you'll have brand spanking new DNA/life.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

FLORES WROTE THIS: "Second, cancer and other horrible defects are part of life. They are not necessarily bad, only you seem to view them from a tunnel vision. You also seem to put all your eggs and value to life as you know it on this earth. You don't believe in a soul nor do you believe that we always existed and will always exist."

I support your comment insomuch as I found out from experience that I had more important things to concern me than my limitations, whether physical or financial. What we need to know above and beyond anything else is that "He that is in you is greater than he that is in the world," and I take this so far as to believe that no matter what I fact I have more than sufficient strength to deal with it. There is no greater gift than knowing that our Source is sufficient. You are correct. These things that seem to get in our way, may be the way, and our victory is not dependent upon our circumstances. I know this to be true. PMT

 

[Raithere]

I'm pointing out to a god that creates a system that can be maintained and sustained. I'm talking about a god that soft-wires his creation so perfectly to adapt without the obvious intervention.

Where are the various codes for these different situations, how are the codes switched on and off? Where are the mechanisms that prevent adaptations from accruing?

Second, cancer and other horrible defects are part of life. They are not necessarily bad, only you seem to view them from a tunnel vision.

Well, if belief in the value of human life and regret about human suffering is tunnel vision then yes. I can conceive of some scenarios where certain degrees of suffering might be for the 'greater good' but not all of them and I certainly do see perfect design demonstrated in such a system. God would have some major explaining to do before I'd be willing to forgive him what he owes.

You also seem to put all your eggs and value to life as you know it on this earth. You don't believe in a soul nor do you believe that we always existed and will always exist.

Partially correct, but you're off the mark. While I see no reason to believe that my consciousness will continue past my death neither do I view myself as a separate entity, I am merely an expression of the whole, a raindrop in the ocean. As such, the things that we do live beyond us; our effect is eternal if negligible. Thus many of my 'eggs' are left hopefully for the future. But the most important things, as even religion tells us, are right here and right now. I live in the present and the immanent future as well as I am able.

If you you want to go down that route, then my demands will be heavy.

Hopefully I can satisfy them.

How old is our earth?

Approximately 5 billion years.

How many species are availalble on earth?

The estimate is anywhere from 10 to 30 million.

A time line and chart clearly showing how all these mutations could have happened in 4.5 billion years.

We don't have a chart. (Did you miss my previous post to you regarding historical sciences?) Do you have a chart that can show you where every rock in the riverbed came from and precisely define the path to its current location? Can you tell me where the next rock or piece of silt where come from or where it will settle? Can you tell me the origin of the Amazon River in anything other than generalized terms? Does that make the fact of erosion any less real? Does that invalidate hydrology? Of course not.

A chart showing the number of generation per species required to mature one set of species to the next.

This depends upon the species that are selected, their mutation rates, population sizes, and other factors. Humans and ape have about a 2% variance, the approximation based upon mutation rates is that the species should have diverged somewhere between 3.5 and 5.5 million years ago depending on the estimates.

As Fred Hoyle puts it, in The Intelligent Universe: 'Just how excruciatingly slowly genetic information accumulates by trial and error can be seen from a simple example.

One thing to note is that the estimate is changing; there is evidence now that the mutation rate is about 100 times higher than previously thought. But more importantly, Holye quite simply used an erroneous model. (BTW I find it interesting that you dismissed probability as a science earlier and are now attempting to use it to refute evolution.)

Hoyle calculated his probabilities based purely on chance. The argument is fallacious right down to its roots. Evolution is not merely chance, even chemistry is not merely chance. If chemistry occurred merely by random assemblage you couldn't grow a crystal a salt in your lifetime. He ignores the principles of selection, he ignores that these selections are cumulative, and he also made his calculation based upon sequential trials and neglected that many trials occur simultaneously.

I'd also recommend the following:
http://www.skeptic.com/archives45.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

And if you're really interested in the details of the probabilities:
http://www.math.ksu.edu/~jasonr/sewell.pdf

But, the two are intertwined...and can't be separated. If you are willing to say that you don't know how the first cells existed, then you have to say that you don't how species were developed from that very first cell that you know nothing of it's origin.

Flores, you're not thinking clearly. You just told me that if I admit I don't how the first cells I don't know anything about their origin. On one level you're saying nothing and on the other you're committing a fallacy. There are some things we can know, some things that we can postulate, and some things that we will never know for sure.

Your logic here is fuzzy and backwards...You must start from the beginning and work your way to the end...not start at the end and disect the problem back to the beginning and then say that's how things really happened....That's wrong...That's you and other scientists breaking the problem into bits and pieces that may not fit together as perfectly as you think.

Again, I suggest you go read my previous post regarding historical science. Do you know precisely how 3/4 of the Earth came to be covered by water? Does not knowing invalidate your entire field of study?

You are using very big words very liberally. "ADDED TO", "SUBTRACTED FROM"??? Hell, I can solve all my problems that way very easily. I can even assume that I'm in a relation to a mountain only if you take the bejesus out of me and leave me with mere carbon particles...You can also make a mountain a person, by adding to it the components of a person?????? Please Rath.....Is that what evolution is about....A gross assumption and extrapolation of what we see?

No, this is what we observe. Please settle down, what is it that's upsetting you so badly? Sometimes, as Spurious just mentioned, the replication process goes awry. Often such an error will cause a segment of DNA not to be replicated along with the rest of the sequence (a subtraction) or for a segment to be duplicated (an addition). They are big words and they're very powerful as you understand. The fact is that this does happen, we have seen it happen.

I don't buy this.....Humans exist in all different shapes and forms and none of them is more or less human than one another.

But none are the same are they; particularly on a genetic level. If mutation is not a factor then why do we not all have exactly the same genetic structure after millions of generations? Wouldn't everyone have blended into one race by now? If we started out as two or five or fifty or ten thousand (however many God first created) why are we all so different genetically?

Natural selection may favor the tall or the short, the whites or the blacks, but it will not cause a species cross over...

Define what you mean by 'cross over' because speciation has been observed Flores. It's a fact.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Mutation filtered by natural selection can only lead to extinction....Look at your odds and probability carefully and you'll arrive to the doom extinction situation.

I've already looked. More to the point I started with a similar belief and have been convinced otherwise. I suggest you look more closely because you seem to be fudging over some important concepts that thoroughly change the outcome of the calculations.

The fact of the matter is, without taking a Creator into account, one cannot give a valid explanation of life.

Attributing facts to miracles is not an explanation it's a statement of faith. It adds nothing at all to our understanding or knowledge. What does 'created by God' explain about life? How does it help us to understand how life works and how the various forms interact and interrelate? How does the answer, "God put the water on Earth just for us" help you with any facet of your science? How does it assist you in postulating how many other planets in the Universe might also have water?

All it does is give you a reason to believe in God but it's a circular reasoning. God is more subtle and more powerful than that. I'm not out to attack your faith Flores, honestly I'm not. But you need to found your faith in something stronger than "anything else is impossible". Believe me, I know from experience.

There is simply no other theory which fits in with the pattern of the universe.

Smaller versions of this have been consistently asserted throughout the ages. They have just as consistently been disproved.

What this work really amounts to is an academic acknowledgement of the fact that the Maker of the world has fashioned it in such a way that it just cannot be explained by any mechanical interpretation. For instance, as John Maynard Smith has written, the theory of evolution is beset with certain 'built-in' problems. There appears to be no solution to these problems, for all we have to go by are theories. And without concrete evidence, there is no way we can back up our theories

It may surprise you but I find this as wonderful as you but probably for a different reason. I don't ever want to see all the questions answered. In fact, one of the scariest notions I've ever run across was, "In heaven, all your questions are answered." Imagine eternity without curiosity or discovery... for me that would be hell. But not having enough evidence to prove one answer does not validate the truth of another answer.

This is where you and I differ. Repeat the following to yourself. "Physics and Chemistry don't don't dictate behavior. They're merely one of the many tools of understanding why things behave as they do."

I didn't say that they do, that's an entirely different discussion. What I said is that their influence upon the environment is greater than life's.

I love the basics, and the answer is YES...

Great, we have a foundation upon which to build. Now, do you agree that DNA can change, be added to, or subtracted from by natural or organic processes?

~Raithere

 

[Bells]

I'm only entertaining this because underneath this latest brain fart on your side, you have been a different animal. You mostly seemed balanced on your views, yet lately you're giving me a clear indication that you're either acting out of your chart or that you've been lying all along. Perhaps you're getting more comfortable on this site and we are now seeing the real you..I must say, I prefer the innocence and sincerity of the ex-cautious blind little kitty that I thought Bells was.

That's the funny thing Flores, I'm still the same person as I'd always been when I came on this forum for the first time a few years ago. I'd always found you to be someone who was well versed and intelligent, however from what I've witnessed in this thread, you've flipped from one side to the other at times confusing yourself. You think I'm acting a part when in truth I am not, you just think I am different or have changed because in this issue we are on differing sides and I'm not agreeing with all that you say where in the past we'd usually seen eye to eye on many issues.

And as for your statement about you having seen the light? I have no idea what in the world you're on about there, but I'd take a guess that you're saying that you've seen the whole truth in the light and that I'm still in darkness and not squinting? Anywho, I find your logic in this literally impossible to understand as you have switched arguments so many times that it's impossible to keep up. As you yourself stated earlier on that if anyone agrees with you, you'd just switch sides.

As to likening you to PM in your fervour? Well from this thread and the way you've posted in here in the last dozen or so pages, that's the impression that I have gotten. You went from discussing evolution in an educated manner to sounding like a petulant child. Only difference is that you use your own words instead of mass quoting from a different source and you thankfully do not use multi-coloured fonts.

The more light you are exposed to, the more your eyes will likely squint and close.....much like mine is starting to do. I'm standing infront of strongest rays of truth, and I'm barely able to open my eyes, while you are gloating about how well you see in the middle of darkness and dimmest of lights...Do you now see the difference between me and you?

Ok I need to ask. You'd rather go around with closed eyes before the truth? Isn't it the saying that one can always view the truth fully without closing ones eyes to it. What you've said appears to devalue your whole argument as you appear to be saying that you close your eyes before the truth.

Flores if you are saying that you've seen and believe in the glory of god and that is what you deem to be the truth, then good for you. But all I am asking and have asked countless of times in this thread is this. Where is the proof that God created us? Such a thing is totally unknown, and people such as yourself rely only on faith to state that it is the truth and in the process discount all other theories which have proof backing them up. What if creation in itself is not the truth though? That's what I've been asking Flores. You claim it to be a truth but you have absolutely nothing to back it up with. The way I see it is to take things at face value. There used to be a time when people believed that the sun orbitted the earth and that the earth was flat and this was based on faith as people saw the earth as being the centre of gods universe and that all revolved around it. But this was discounted and the truth ended up being something completely opposite. I've said many times Flores that if someone can show me absolute proof that God created us, thereby discounting the theory of evolution, then it'd be something that would be looked at seriously. But until then, I rather believe in what I can see and what has been proven. Faith alone is not enough proof.

 

[Proud_Muslim]

As to likening you to PM in your fervour? Well from this thread and the way you've posted in here in the last dozen or so pages, that's the impression that I have gotten.

It bothers you to see PM so confident and POWERFUL with his ISLAM, right ?

you know bells, the more I see and read from HOPELESS ATHIESTS like you the STRONGER Muslim I become, the more powerful in my beliefs I grow, I see how empty headed LOST you guys are ! I see how really HOPELESS you are ! you cant imagine what kind of favour you and your athiest henchmen are doing for me: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

It bothers you to see PM so confident and POWERFUL with his ISLAM, right ?

you know bells, the more I see and read from HOPELESS ATHIESTS like you the STRONGER Muslim I become, the more powerful in my beliefs I grow, I see how empty headed LOST you guys are ! I see how really HOPELESS you are ! you cant imagine what kind of favour you and your athiest henchmen are doing for me: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

Still playing the same old broken record.

 

[Bells]

It bothers you to see PM so confident and POWERFUL with his ISLAM, right ?

you know bells, the more I see and read from HOPELESS ATHIESTS like you the STRONGER Muslim I become, the more powerful in my beliefs I grow, I see how empty headed LOST you guys are ! I see how really HOPELESS you are ! you cant imagine what kind of favour you and your athiest henchmen are doing for me: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

PM, frankly, I don't give a hoot what religion you belong to. You are only proof to me that religion can be bad for some people. You see religion as being the be all and end all. Your posts show to me that the only life you know and wish to know is through your religion. You discount anything that your religion disagrees with purely on the basis that your religion dictates it as being so. You do not appear to speak of your own mind, only through the mind of your religious doctrine. You let your religion define who you are instead of you defining yourself and that's kind of sad. I read your threads and I don't know where you end and your religion begins. I never said I was an atheist PM and in truth I'm not. I'm an agnostic. I just don't believe in religion like you do.

 

[Proud_Muslim]

PM, frankly, I don't give a hoot what religion you belong to.

But I do give a hoot about you, you see the difference between me and you, I care about you because I am Muslim, you dont care about me because you are HOPELESS ATHIEST.

You are only proof to me that religion can be bad for some people.

And you are the greatest reflection of the evolution bullshit.

You see religion as being the be all and end all. Your posts show to me that the only life you know and wish to know is through your religion.

TRUE BECAUSE MY RELIGION, ISLAM, IS THE LIFE ITSELF.

You discount anything that your religion disagrees with purely on the basis that your religion dictates it as being so.

My religion is the greatest in the world, the best thing that can ever happen to you, it gives me everything I need, why should I listen to some HOPELESS LOST CONFUSED ILLUSIONISTS about things bigger than any human mind ?

I have the truth, I have ISLAM, what do you have ? some man-made illusion nonesense called athiesm and evolution ???

At least I live disciplined organized life, athiests on the other hand live like animals, lost in the jungle, no direction, no purpose in this life, just eat, sleep and jump on each other asses.

You do not appear to speak of your own mind, only through the mind of your religious doctrine.

My religion is my mind, my mind is my religion, my religion is bigger than all the hopeless athiests in this world combined, you dont even have an atom of what my religion offers me, you dont even feel 0,000000001 % of what I feel with Islam.

I am sure of who I am, I am sure of where I am going, I am sure where I came from, while you are LOST, you dont know why the hell you are here.

You let your religion define who you are instead of you defining yourself and that's kind of sad.

You see, it is this kind of selfishness that make athiesm DISGUSTING, you are not capable of curing a flu by yourself, how the hell you want to define yourself by yourself ???? you can't survive by yourself, you will die without god's mercy, even when you deny his majestic existence, he still feed you and he still give you the means to live, breath, hear, see and smell...etc

I am proud to be defined as MUSLIM, it is great honour, it is my greatest pleasure.

I read your threads and I don't know where you end and your religion begins. I never said I was an atheist PM and in truth I'm not. I'm an agnostic. I just don't believe in religion like you do.

You should not view me as someone separate from Islam, I am integral part of Islam, I am NOTHING without Islam, I am worthless without Islam, so you better look at me as MUSLIM not as person.

As to you not following any religion, it is very sad, as you cant imagine big city like NEW YORK for example running without trafic lights, you cant live your life without TRAFIC LIGHTS, religion is our trafic lights, it is ISLAM the ONLY religion that balances the material and the spiritual and give you the correct equation.

Read about Islam bells, you have no excuse.

 

[spidergoat]

We are Islam... You will be assimilated.... resistance is futile...

 

[Raithere]

HOPELESS ATHIESTS

While I realize that it makes you feel better to think of us as hopeless, some of us are quite hopeful.

At least I live disciplined organized life, athiests on the other hand live like animals, lost in the jungle, no direction, no purpose in this life, just eat, sleep and jump on each other asses.

What's with your obsession with asses? I don't personally know of anyone who owns an ass, but I certainly wouldn't jump on it without their permission. I might injure its back.



~Raithere

 

[Bells]

I have the truth, I have ISLAM, what do you have ? some man-made illusion nonesense called athiesm and evolution ???

PM I have my family, loved ones, friends, and all the rest of it. That is what I have and that is what matters to me in my life. Everything else comes second to that. And no you don't have the truth PM. The only truth you have is the truth that your religion tells you. It is not your truth, but the truth of someone else which you believe in.

At least I live disciplined organized life, athiests on the other hand live like animals, lost in the jungle, no direction, no purpose in this life, just eat, sleep and jump on each other asses.

Yes PM, you evolved while the rest of us are hunter gatherers . You'd be amazed at how difficult it is to try and install power points in a cave.

You claim that your religion allows you to live an organised life and a life that is disciplined? Well I too live such a life and mine is done through having an organiser and an alarm clock.

My religion is my mind, my mind is my religion, my religion is bigger than all the hopeless athiests in this world combined, you dont even have an atom of what my religion offers me, you dont even feel 0,000000001 % of what I feel with Islam.

You see PM, the difference between you and I is that I devote all that love to things that matter to me, my family and loved ones. You claim that your religion is your life, well my life is my life and those I am close to are also my life. Without them I would not be here today.

I am sure of who I am, I am sure of where I am going, I am sure where I came from, while you are LOST, you dont know why the hell you are here.

I know where I'm going and I know who I am. I know where I came from. The reason I am here is because my parents decided to have a child and hence I was born. I don't need any religion to define my identity PM. I lived my life and I know who I am deep down.

You see, it is this kind of selfishness that make athiesm DISGUSTING, you are not capable of curing a flu by yourself, how the hell you want to define yourself by yourself ????

PM, if you can't define who you are without any religion then that is beyond sad. That borders on fanaticism and obsession. And to 'cure' a flu I stay in bed and drink lots of liquids ... all by myself. I do not have to be spoon fed my beliefs by others. I make up my own mind. If you like to be told by others what to believe in, then knock yourself out.

you can't survive by yourself, you will die without god's mercy, even when you deny his majestic existence, he still feed you and he still give you the means to live, breath, hear, see and smell...etc

How is my denying belief in religion denying the existence of God? I was not aware that one had to be entrenched in religious fervour to believe in God.

I am proud to be defined as MUSLIM, it is great honour, it is my greatest pleasure.

You see, here in lies the difference between you and I. My greatest honour is that I am loved by my parents, family and loved ones. They are my number one priority, and they bring me the greatest pleasure. Nothing comes close to the love I have for them. If I had to choose between a religion or them, they'd come first no matter what. If I had to choose between God or them, my family would still be chosen above all else. I view my family and loved ones as being a part of who I am and I thank them daily for allowing me to be alive and to be where I am today. If it wasn't for them, I'd be much poorer. You view religion as being your primary love and you view it as being your identity. I view my family and loved ones as being my primary love. My identity I formed on my own with their support and love.

You should not view me as someone separate from Islam, I am integral part of Islam, I am NOTHING without Islam, I am worthless without Islam, so you better look at me as MUSLIM not as person.

I find such talk to be terrifying PM. Seriously, I find it disturbing in the extreme. It seems that you have no true identity. I find it amazing how anyone can view themselves in the manner that you have. In fact, I find it terrifying. Such fanaticism and zealotness always terrifies me. You speak about Islam as though it is your very life, yet you do not even mention your family or loved ones in the equation. I find that scary. How you can let any religion define who you are as a person and as an individual is beyond me. You are you PM and your religion is but a part of your life, it should not be the whole of your life. The way you stated that above, it is as though nothing else matters but your religion, not even your family. Nothing should come before your family, not even your religion.

Flores
I apologise for comparing you to PM. You don't even come close in religious fervour and fanaticism.

 

[SnakeLord]

As to you not following any religion, it is very sad, as you cant imagine big city like NEW YORK for example running without trafic lights, you cant live your life without TRAFIC LIGHTS, religion is our trafic lights, it is ISLAM the ONLY religion that balances the material and the spiritual and give you the correct equation.

I see this very often in the religious world. You are guided, driving along a set path at 90mph on way to your next life. The rest of us prefer to walk and see what this life is all about.