myself,
peace.
peace.
"Who Do U Believe In"
- Thread starter Muslim
- Start date
I see I've been edited out of existence for blasphemy. Oh well.
Muslim said:
The true God, the creator of heaven and Earth; the God of Israel.
His inpired Words that He gave to men are in the King James version Bible.
The New Testament (and some parts of the Old Testament that still apply) are what the true God wants you to believe and follow.
Obey Him and find eternal happiness in heaven.
Disobey Him and find eternal misery in hell.
usp8riot said:
I have some very good new tracks or if if you want them. This track is called "who do you believe in" from the album "Album: Chronic 2000: Still Smokin' (Suge Knight Represents) " If you like 2pac lyrics you'll love Immortal_Technique - his lyrics are much, much better if if you can understand intricate words.
scorpius said:I believe in me,
and no its not the same as faith in god which is no doubt what you were trying to prove,that we all have faith in something therefore we cant be atheists right??
wrong!
There is sufficient evidence to believe in a god.
please do tell already....we are all anxious...
The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24
"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130
"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138
"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282
"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289
"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290
"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290
"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291
"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293
Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.
Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species:
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].
Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978
"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in the organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." S.J.Gould. "Evolution Now: A Century After Darwin", 1982, p. 140
What if there were billions upon billions upon billions of chimps and billions upon billions upon billions of years to do it in? We're not talking one chimp and one typewriter over one holiday weekend. If anything this goes against an 'intelligent creator', (especially as depicted in various texts). Those texts would have us believe that this creator made everything during a week of effort, but the evidence shows this not to be the case. We did not pop up a day or two after the universe did.
Your analogy is seriously flawed.
Why don't we start by looking at the most basic lifeform possible and work from there? You mention humans, but what about Mycoplasma genitalium? What about something even simpler that isn't even 'alive'.. say.. a self replicator?
If logic played any part in it, then these scientists wouldn't be forced into anything other than admitting they did not have an answer.
"In order to explain all life as we see it today, all we need is one single molecule capable of replication and mutation. Once we have that, Evolution will take over. This can be achieved in a molecule containing sequence of only 32 amino acids. How long will it take to order just 32 molecules out of the Billions of Billions of atoms available over a period of billions of years? Remember that these molecules are attracted to each other and will readily bond together given appropriate conditions." (avg)
Where to start on this!!ghost7584 said:
Take a deck of cards. Any deck of 52 cards.
Shuffle them.
Deal them out face up.
Note the order.
Did you know that there was 8 x 10^62 chance that you would deal them out in that EXACT order.
WOW!!!
Amazing!!
Now shuffle them and deal them again.
Did you know that there was 8 x 10^62 chance that you would deal them out in that EXACT order.
A miracle!!
If you look at the order of the 104 cards you have now dealt out, did you know that there was a chance of 1 in 6.5 x 10^135 of dealing them out in that precise order.
Impossible odds, I hear you say.
I think that's like picking one precise atom out of all the atoms in 10^57 universes.
And yet you did it.
Amazing or what!!
According to Hoyle's utterly flawed logic, every time you deal a pack of cards you are defying the laws of probability.
The funny thing about probability is that it really can be used to confuse people who don't fully understand what they're being told.
One could say that belief is just a gamble. In the end, whoever is right gets to stand over the broken corpse of whoever was wrong and say "told you." That tends to make people feel awfully good, doesn't it?
Chance, of course, has very little to do with the evolution of complexity in the universe or individual organisms. First, the universe is the most simple structure known. It is 99.99% hydrogen, most of it in a completly random state known as neutral gas or plasma. It forms mostly amorphous blobs that from time to time collapse under gravity to form simple spheres that eventually burn themselves out. That is the fundamental description of the universe.
More complex things like bacteria are driven by natural selection which is a very non-random engine. Chance only supplies the opportunities for natural selection to take advantage of.
Creationists love to abuse the role of chance in the evolution of complexity. I hate them. Grrrrrr....
More complex things like bacteria are driven by natural selection which is a very non-random engine. Chance only supplies the opportunities for natural selection to take advantage of.
Creationists love to abuse the role of chance in the evolution of complexity. I hate them. Grrrrrr....