London terror attack, yo. :O

In Russian this word is "камикадзе". You might forgive us for not knowing its exact spelling in English. Yes, it does sound like Georgian last name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pioner

And DDT, you are such an expert in Koran, but you still do not provide name of the person who wrote it, why?

---

Hadith tells us that Muhammad was illiterate and was unable to read or write. So of course Muhammad did not write Koran. Muslims claim that Muhammad dictated the whole Koran to his followers and many of them memorized the Koranic verses word by word and later they wrote it down. The bottom line is that no one knows for sure who wrote the Koran.

After the death of Muhammad there was a time when Uthman the third Caliph of Islam ordered to burn all the copies of Koran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of Koran at that time and so Uthman took this step. According to Koran and Hadith, Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam. So Uthman was not a prophet and we do not know whether he kept the valid and original Koran or destroyed it? We also do not know how he determined which one was the correct version of Koran?

Muslims claim that Koran was directly given by Allah and Sheikh Ahmed Deedat the Muslim Scholar and other Muslims have claimed that KOran is the word of God
There! Happy now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pioner

And DDT, you are such an expert in Koran, but you still do not provide name of the person who wrote it, why?

---

Hadith tells us that Muhammad was illiterate and was unable to read or write. So of course Muhammad did not write Koran. Muslims claim that Muhammad dictated the whole Koran to his followers and many of them memorized the Koranic verses word by word and later they wrote it down. The bottom line is that no one knows for sure who wrote the Koran.

After the death of Muhammad there was a time when Uthman the third Caliph of Islam ordered to burn all the copies of Koran except one. It was believed that there were variations in text and recitation practice of Koran at that time and so Uthman took this step. According to Koran and Hadith, Muhammad was the last prophet of Islam. So Uthman was not a prophet and we do not know whether he kept the valid and original Koran or destroyed it? We also do not know how he determined which one was the correct version of Koran?

Muslims claim that Koran was directly given by Allah and Sheikh Ahmed Deedat the Muslim Scholar and other Muslims have claimed that KOran is the word of God
There! Happy now?

---

yes. But I still do not see anything saying that it was written "by one man", as you wrote before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rgkatyaisashaukr

Wow! Are you crazy?! Yes, kamikazis were used to attack Pearl Harbor. Or is this one of conspiracies, where you're saying it really didn't happen? Are you like one of those people who also doesn't believe the Holocaust happened?


Attack At Pearl Harbor, 1941

The surprise was complete. The attacking planes came in two waves; the first hit its target at 7:53 AM, the second at 8:55. By 9:55 it was all over. By 1:00 PM the carriers that launched the planes from 274 miles off the coast of Oahu were heading back to Japan.

Poster commemorating
the attack, 1942
Behind them they left chaos, 2,403 dead, 188 destroyed planes and a crippled Pacific Fleet that included 8 damaged or destroyed battleships. In one stroke the Japanese action silenced the debate that had divided Americans ever since the German defeat of France left England alone in the fight against the Nazi terror.

Word of the attack reached President Roosevelt as he lunched in his oval study on Sunday afternoon. Later, Winston Churchill called to tell him that the Japanese had also attacked British colonies in southeast Asia and that Britain would declare war the next day. Roosevelt responded that he would go before Congress the following day to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. Churchill wrote: "To have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. Now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!...Hitler's fate was sealed. Mussolini's fate was sealed. As for the Japanese, they would be ground to powder."

On Monday, FDR signed the declaration of war granted by Congress. One day later both Germany and Italy, as partners of Japan in the Tripartite Pact, declared war on the US.

Here's the link too: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pearl.htm

Talk about a frikin' crackhead! :roll:

---

Sorry, rgkatyaetc., but you seem to be missing the point Pioner is trying to make. You are confusing kamikaze and regular japanese airplanes.

KAMIKAZE is a suicide air plane, that the Japanese used during the last year(s) of WWII. They were rigged with explosives to create more damage on impact, the pilot comitted suicide in the process.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (nobody is refuting this) occured with regular Japanese air planes/bombers. Kamikaze wasn't invented by then.

That's it. Pioner only wants to say that there was no Kamikaze attack on Pearl Harbor, but a very real Japanese attack. This was to prove a point that you didn't know what you were talking about. IMHO, just because one get's one fact wrong, doesn't mean that everything one says is wrong...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

That's it. Pioner only wants to say that there was no Kamikaze attack on Pearl Harbor, but a very real Japanese attack. This was to prove a point that you didn't know what you were talking about. IMHO, just because one get's one fact wrong, doesn't mean that everything one says is wrong...

---

yes, you are right, but the argument started about terroristic attacks, and considering that attack on Perl Harbor was terroristic (kinda because kamikadze were used), then USA somehow had a right to revenge. Whatever. I just wanted to point out, that kamikadzes were not used, and even on this stupid argument you cannot say that it was terroristic attack. And it is me being blamed for stupidity and not knowing history. No hope for appologizies for accusing me on that from rgkatyaisashaukr, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pioner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

[

yes. But I still do not see anything saying that it was written "by one man", as you wrote before.

---

---

Use your head man. Without Mohammed it would not have been written. Unless you actually believe Allah wrote it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

Well it is like this:

...

They are not willing to accept that their theory does not hold water because the alternative is what?........Intelligent Design. So they keep searching for facts that are not there.

The fossil record shows an abundance of life that appeared suddenly. There is nothing.....then there are heaps of fossilized life forms. Whets more the life forms that they find first are quite similar to plants and small life forms that we see today and are organically complex..
There is no indication of life starting slowly from single cell life forms.
Mathematicians have computed the odds of life being able to start on its own and grow into even a simple life form as a figure with an infinite number of zeros behind it and admit the odds make it "impossible".

There are fossilized trees still standing upright through supposedly millions and millions of years of strata. There are fossilized footsteps of what looks like human footprints in the strata that contains the evidence of dinosaurs.

Part of the problem is that the biologists date the age of the life form by the date the geologists give the rocks and the geologists date the age of the rocks by the date the biologists give the life forms.

AS far as the fossilized remains of Neanderthal or Australopithecus or Java Man and the likes. Some have been found to be nothing more than an extinct ape (Australopithecus) . Or in one case an elephants knee cap. Yes that’s right. A whole "early man" constructed out of an elephants knee cap. Another, Java , I think was a scull cap, a few teeth and a thigh bone found about 50 feet away. The thigh bone is from a woman so they put them all together and called it Pithecanthropus Erectus.

An entire family of “cavemen” was produced from what turned to be One Pigs Tooth and called Nebraska Man.

...

There are plenty of good reasons to keep your options open on this issue.

---

I think you have been reading too much of this "revolution against evolution" Whose references are all creationist research centres.

Let us take the "Nebraska Man" as an example. Sounds like a terriffic story doesn't it? A whole entire family of cavemen from one pig's tooth!

The counter argument I can find from this website: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

"Nebraska Man was named in 1922 from a humanlike tooth which had been found in Nebraska. As creationists tell the story, evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man, complete with illustrations of him and his family, before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs."

"The true story is much more complex (Wolf and Mellett 1985; Gould 1991). Harold Cook, a rancher and geologist from Nebraska, had found the tooth in 1917, and in 1922 he sent it to Henry Fairfield Osborn, a paleontologist and the president of the American Museum of Natural History. Osborn identified it as an ape, and quickly published a paper identifying it as a new species, which he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii."

"The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor:
"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."

"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)"

You can read more on the above mentioned website.

DDT, I know you are not the sort of person to promote creationism, so I am assuming that you just want to show the inefficiencies with the Darwin evolution. but please, use real arguments and facts, and not half-truths and twisted information. I can go to my local political office for that. And stop generalizing!!!!

I am a open minded person, but unless you can give me some clear unbiased sources, I am afraid your time will be wasted, because I do not have the time to do research on these half-facts. If you had done the research yourself, you wouldn't even have mentioned "Nebraska Man" in the first place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pioner

yes, you are right, but the argument started about terroristic attacks, and considering that attack on Perl Harbor was terroristic (kinda because kamikadze were used), then USA somehow had a right to revenge. Whatever. I just wanted to point out, that kamikadzes were not used, and even on this stupid argument you cannot say that it was terroristic attack. And it is me being blamed for stupidity and not knowing history. No hope for appologizies for accusing me on that from rgkatyaisashaukr, I think.

---

well, a terrorist attack, by definition, is killing innocent people to achieve a politcal purpose. So... if the Japanese civilians are to be considered to be innocent, then yes, dropping nuclear bombs in their tea-gardens is considered a terrorist attack. I have a hard time explaining how Japanese civilians can be legitimate targets... so I conclude that, yes, it was a terrorist attack... unless someone can convince me otherwise?

I don't think revenge is any legitimiate reason for any attack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pioner

[ DDT generalazed about Muslims, I just showed that it is easy to do the same accusations on Christians.

---

Actually you have not showed this at all except perhaps to someone who has little knowlege on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pioner

And I brought quotas from Bible, DDT did not even bother to bring quotas, less then that, he just gave some interpretation he prefered.

---

You received from me the same answer you would have from any theologan. You are simply not equiped to understand the reply.[/quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pioner

Double standards? It is OK to get something out of context from Koran, and prohibited to do the same with Bible? At least, let's have equal rights and play fair in this argument.

---

If you knew anything you should know that the Koran is written very poorly. Mohammed is all over the map with his statements. THIS IS WHY I HAVE GIVEN EXAMPLES of his ACTIONS. His actions are what give away the errors of Islam. I base my opinions of Islam on the example that Mohammed set. That is all we really have to go on.

The example that Mohammed set is one of a Murderer a Rapist and Child Molester. THose facts are historically undisputable. He was a cult leader of the worst kind and was hated by all who had the misfortune to be come into contact by him.

Even bringing Christianity into this subject is quite stupid as this thread is about terrorism in London and it shows that you can't wait to to find an opportunity to show your contempt for Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pioner

yes, you are right, but the argument started about terroristic attacks, and considering that attack on Perl Harbor was terroristic (kinda because kamikadze were used), then USA somehow had a right to revenge. Whatever. I just wanted to point out, that kamikadzes were not used, and even on this stupid argument you cannot say that it was terroristic attack. And it is me being blamed for stupidity and not knowing history. No hope for appologizies for accusing me on that from rgkatyaisashaukr, I think.

---

well, a terrorist attack, by definition, is killing innocent people to achieve a politcal purpose. So... if the Japanese civilians are to be considered to be innocent, then yes, dropping nuclear bombs in their tea-gardens is considered a terrorist attack. I have a hard time explaining how Japanese civilians can be legitimate targets... so I conclude that, yes, it was a terrorist attack... unless someone can convince me otherwise?

I don't think revenge is any legitimiate reason for any attack.

---

thanks, that is what exactly what I meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vesh

In Russian this word is "камикадзе". You might forgive us for not knowing its exact spelling in English. Yes, it does sound like Georgian last name.

---

Why would they spell it like that? It doesn't even sound like that. :|
It's pronounced Kah Mah Kah Zeh. But then again a lot of Americans pronounce it all dumb like... KAMAKADEZE! Or flippin SOONAMEE. :evil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

[

I think you have been reading too much of this "revolution against evolution" Whose references are all creationist research centres.I am a open minded person, but unless you can give me some clear unbiased sources, I am afraid your time will be wasted, because I do not have the time to do research on these half-facts. If you had done the research yourself, you wouldn't even have mentioned "Nebraska Man" in the first place!


DDT, I know you are not the sort of person to promote creationism, so I am assuming that you just want to show the inefficiencies with the Darwin evolution. but please, use real arguments and facts, and not half-truths and twisted information. I can go to my local political office for that. And stop generalizing!!!!

I am a open minded person, but unless you can give me some clear unbiased sources, I am afraid your time will be wasted, because I do not have the time to do research on these half-facts. If you had done the research yourself, you wouldn't even have mentioned "Nebraska Man" in the first place!

---

Well where else would one go for infomation on an oppositional theory to Evolution, since as stated there is only one alternative and that is that there was Intelligence behind the formation of life?

And further more who is going to decide what exactly an "unbiased source " is? You? Do you think that only an atheist should decide? You best rethink what yoiu are saying here. It sounds like you must think that a scientific dicovery made by a scientist who believes in intelligent design is to be ignored. That is not a scientific attitude. Even Einstein was investigating the possibilities of some sort of creator.

I am well aware of the debate over Nebraska Man. The point is there are debates over almost all evolutionist assertions. They don't have any proof of bones of ape-men to date, yet one would not know it by the assertions made in our textbooks.

Why should I not generalize? Scientists who push evolution do it all the time. Double standard! They also have their own half truths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

DDT, I know you are not the sort of person to promote creationism

---

What? Of course I am the sort of person to promote Creationism. It is the more logical choice.

Well here is a link but it won't do you any good since you seem to have little patience. Nothing good ever just falls into your lap, you have to dig around a little. Same with knowlege. BUt maybe some one will get something out of it, so here.
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idtheorymenu.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TriggerHappyJack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vesh

In Russian this word is "камикадзе". You might forgive us for not knowing its exact spelling in English. Yes, it does sound like Georgian last name.

---

Why would they spell it like that? It doesn't even sound like that. :|
It's pronounced Kah Mah Kah Zeh. But then again a lot of Americans pronounce it all dumb like... KAMAKADEZE! Or flippin SOONAMEE. :evil:

---

In Japanese these words are pronounced exactly as in Russian (consonants). Especially "tsunami" (цунами) - we have no difficulty saying correct TS at the beginning of the word - цапля, цирк, центр. Japanese Z (as in Romaji - Japanese romanization) is always transliterated as ДЗ, not З in Russian to reflect the Japanese pronunciation. Although, Z between 2 vowels doesn't have a strong D part as in the beginning of the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

Well where else would one go for infomation on an oppositional theory to Evolution, since as stated there is only one alternative and that is that there was Intelligence behind the formation of life?

---

Well OK, the point I am trying to make is this (and this also adds to the bias discussion that will follow under this): The Evolutional Theory is, as you say, a theory. There are many people, christians, atheists, muslims, and so on, who are scientists that follow the scientific theory. They discover fossiles and interpret the results. They don't have an agenda (at least if they are following the scientific theory), they are not out there trying to fit their findings to a defined theory. They find something, try to find out what it is, where it came from, how old it is, what color it would have liked the most, etc. etc. Then, if it happens to fall in the overwhelming heap of evidence supporting evolution (supporting, not proving) then so be it. They don't say, "look an old bone! This proves that a fish named bob turned into a semi-hyperactive koala!" (well, at least not the vast majority) If they were all fitting it to a defined theory, our knowledge of the field wouldn't be expanding. Recently they found a new type of human species on some island in your neighborhood (don't recall the details) which changes the way we thought of where man originated from. This just shows that the scientific community is willing to adapt to new evidence. It is far more accepting than Creationism, which, without significant evidence, claims that the world was just there. Please feel free to dispute that last sentence.

Hmmm, that was a long point. More of a line, than a point.

Yes, there are scientist who fudge evidence, but you can not ignore the work of millions of honest scientists that work honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

And further more who is going to decide what exactly an "unbiased source " is? You? Do you think that only an atheist should decide? You best rethink what yoiu are saying here. It sounds like you must think that a scientific dicovery made by a scientist who believes in intelligent design is to be ignored. That is not a scientific attitude. Even Einstein was investigating the possibilities of some sort of creator.

---

Excuse me, you are saying I am an atheist? You are making assumptions, my friend.

I compare what the Creationist information tells me, versus what The Evolutionists tell me. I did a search on your "Nebraska Man" and all the Creationist sites I visited only had a short description of what happened, exactly enough to fit the point they were trying to make. What is important to me is to know all the facts, so I can decide for myself. The story made more sense when I read the whole situation. Unfortunately, this method can never work 100% because you still have to believe the place you get your facts from. So you pick your sources, according to who you think you can trust. I am always willing to hear both sides of the story.

A good site I have found regarding the sensetive issues of religion is this:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ They list the facts on both sides of the story fairly accurately. I would trust them more than www.creationistissomuchbetterthananythingelse.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

I am well aware of the debate over Nebraska Man. The point is there are debates over almost all evolutionist assertions. They don't have any proof of bones of ape-men to date, yet one would not know it by the assertions made in our textbooks.

Why should I not generalize? Scientists who push evolution do it all the time. Double standard! They also have their own half truths.

---

Well you should not generalize, because you are better than them. I try hard not to generalize, and I know creationists have some valid points, but I feel like when I discuss this this to people who believe in Creationism, they tend to be defensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

DDT, I know you are not the sort of person to promote creationism

---

What? Of course I am the sort of person to promote Creationism. It is the more logical choice.

Well here is a link but it won't do you any good since you seem to have little patience. Nothing good ever just falls into your lap, you have to dig around a little. Same with knowlege. BUt maybe some one will get something out of it, so here.
http://acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/idtheorymenu.htm

---

Thanks DDT, I will try to read it later...

I did not mean that you were an atheist. I just mean atheists in general. BY the way I have close friends who are atheists so don't anyone get the idea that I have grudge against atheists. I'll bet Shirley Manson is an atheist and I like her.

I must say, kalinka, that all the "evidence" for evolution is as unscientific as it gets! There is actually no more "real" evidence supporting evolution than there is creationism. In fact, one man is SO sure of this, he is offering 250,000 dollars to ANYONE who can provide undeniable evidence for evolution. He can counter almost anything you throw at him. If you are interested, check out www.drdino.com Now I'm not saying I favor creationism over evolution, quite frankly, I don't have an opinion about this. I don't care how we got here. But I just though I'd throw in my two cents.

Kalinka, my respects.

DDT, once again who the hell is biologist Einstein? You keep on mentioning him, never explaining who he was. I know only about physists Einstein, and never heard that he published any works in biology. Can you provide any links to that? I am so curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saibot

I must say, kalinka, that all the "evidence" for evolution is as unscientific as it gets! There is actually no more "real" evidence supporting evolution than there is creationism. In fact, one man is SO sure of this, he is offering 250,000 dollars to ANYONE who can provide undeniable evidence for evolution. He can counter almost anything you throw at him. If you are interested, check out www.drdino.com Now I'm not saying I favor creationism over evolution, quite frankly, I don't have an opinion about this. I don't care how we got here. But I just though I'd throw in my two cents.

---

Actually there a lot of fossil evidence of supporting Evolution theory. And what about artaficial selection? How does Creationism explain that?

And infections... infections... please explain me why bacterias getting more and more resistent to antibiotics? I can see that you guys, DDT saibot know biology better then me (forget about my Master's degree in biology), but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pioner

And infections... infections... please explain me why bacterias getting more and more resistent to antibiotics? I can see that you guys, DDT saibot know biology better then me (forget about my Master's degree in biology), but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

---

Excellent point.
Evolution in it's simplest, scientifically proveable form.

Quote:

---

but can you explain why bacterias developing resistence to antibiotics from the point of view of Creationism?

---

"God works in mysterious ways."

That answers pretty much everything and anything.

As a Christian, I have never understood why so many Christians refuse to accept the idea of evolution. I know many of them want a "literal" reading of Genesis (where "Creation" is narrated...7 days and all that)...but...

Why is it, for some Christians, so difficult to believe that God could have engineered the fundamental "rules" of the universe (physics, mathematics, biology, botany...EVOLUTION), constructed the universe with these "equations" and rules, and then allowed Time to work for Him as He sat back sipping a beer and watching the fireworks...formation of suns, worlds, galaxies, and the "evolution" of animals, plants, and us...DDT included :wink: ?

Anyway, that's what I believe. I think "evolution" cannot disprove the existence of God, the initial "Engineer" (my opinion)...and religion cannot disprove the existence of the Theory of Evolution. Personally, I think the two co-exist in harmony...that evolution is a part of the initial blueprint.

My Bachelor degree is in agriculture. Sorry, but we've been using principles of evolution and genetics for the last hundred years to create better plants, crop yields, insect and disease resistance, etc., etc. Too many examples exist of "natural" and "forced" selection. The theory of evolution continues to prove itself successfully in the science of agriculture.

And the theory of evolution has been important in understanding disease, viruses, and plagues, and how to fight them and create vaccines and medicines that fight them. Pioner's example may be the best proof of evolution.

Anyway, my 2 kopeks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

Creationism or Intelligent Design Theory is the only other alternative to Evolution and is not in of itself neccesarily connected to religion. Even Albert Einstein was investigating the possibilities of this theory before he died and somehow I imagine him to be a lot smarter than you or I. For you to say that it should not be taught in schools is just plain uneducated or predjudiced.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

And further more who is going to decide what exactly an "unbiased source " is? You? Do you think that only an atheist should decide? You best rethink what yoiu are saying here. It sounds like you must think that a scientific dicovery made by a scientist who believes in intelligent design is to be ignored. That is not a scientific attitude. Even Einstein was investigating the possibilities of some sort of creator.

---

Try as we might, we just can't keep ourselves out of this thread, can we Dobry? :)

Well, I just want to say that this constant association of Einstein with creationism/intelligent design is really getting on my nerves. This is typical of the kind of approach proponents of creationism take to try and make their loony 'theory' seem credible. Mention someone famous and well-respected in science and try to imply they had some time for this nonsense. Well, like Pioner said, Einstein's work was in PHYSICS not BIOLOGY, what the hell would he be doing trying to come up with a theory to challenge evolution?? But it's not just that, the idea that Einstein would have anything to do with creationism is just absurd beyond words. People like DDT try to pretend Einstein had some sympathy for a whole host of their views because he mentioned God on several occasions. But Einstein did not believe in the Judaeo-Christian personal God nor in the survival of the individual consciousness beyond death. He did believe there was an order and structure to the universe and that human life was not meaningless but his conception of an impersonal God was totally different to the kind of thing creationists have in mind. Mentioning his name in the same breath as creationism is about as misleading as you can get.

Now DDT, please quit peddling misinformation about Einstein and creationism!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyphyr

Try as we might, we just can't keep ourselves out of this thread, can we Dobry? :)

---

Very true, Cyphyr! :lol:

I never metioned anything about Einstein believing in a personal God. He believed in some type of intelligent creator. http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/ei ... outgod.htm
http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/pearl-einste ... ingod.html
http://mypage.direct.ca/g/gcramer/relativity.html

The Intelligent Design Theory does not neccesarily believe in a personal God either.

Speaking of faith. Somehow it seems that evoluionists require more of it.

The mutation of bacteria in no way proves that one life form can evolve into a completly different species. There has never been found evidence of a lizard that turned into a horse! Or a monkey into a human. They are still looking for their "missing links". Yet they still hold fast to their theory. This requires "faith".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

The mutation of bacteria in no way proves that one life form can evolve into a completly different species. There has never been found evidence of a lizard that turned into a horse! Or a monkey into a human. They are still looking for their "missing links". Yet they still hold fast to their theory. This requires "faith".

---

Well, DDT, you impressed me with your stubborness. Non of living people saw a god, or Satan, or hear their voices, none of them saw creation of animals by God, but you believe in that, and when scientists speak about natural selection which creates species in MILLION years you scream that no one saw that. Well, again, what about artaficial selection? Did you see all those variations of dogs? God created all of them?

I worked as an archeologist for several years, and when we found a brocken vase, we glue it together, and it damn may miss some pieces, but we still glue it together and get general idea who the vase looked like, although somebody may speculate that we came with a wrong theory.

Regarding bacterias, what is your definition of new species?

Do not mix evolution with breeding.
Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Do not mix evolution with breeding.
Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

---

where did I mentioned breeding? I talked about artaficial selection. Which is human made copy of natural selection.

OK. If you insist - I will refrase
Do not mix artificial selection with evolution. They are totally different things!
And yes, it is ARTIFICIAL, not artaficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

OK. If you insist - I will refrase
Do not mix artificial selection with evolution. They are totally different things!
And yes, it is ARTIFICIAL, not artaficial.

---

thanks for correcting my spelling. :)

I will do mix it. Because it is almost the same. If I decide to create a dog with long ears, I will start to select dogs with longer ears and breed them together, generation after generation. In nature, let's say some conditions create favor for surviving wolfs with longer ears, so wolfs with longer ears got more chances to survice and produce cubs. Those with shorter ears do not survive (got out of breeding pool). So finally we got wolfs with longer ears.

So, what is the difference?

см. выше.
Wolf is still a wolf.
Evolution is about evolving from one animal to another. Isn't it?
Fishes to frogs, frogs to lizards, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

см. выше.
Wolf is still a wolf.
Evolution is about evolving from one animal to another. Isn't it?
Fishes to frogs, frogs to lizards, and so on.

---

no, it is not, it is just a part of Theory of Evolution. Microevolution process is very intensive inside of the species as well, and being studied very thouroughly all the time. And to create a new species it takes million years. And such a huge change, like fish to "frog" even more then that.

Have you seen small fish which lives in mangroove forests? It spends most of the time out of water, it climbs trees etc. Remove all frogs, lizards, birds and beasts from land and you will see that that fish will move futher to land, and will turn to some type of "frog" in several miillion years. We just need some patience to wait and see that.

Yes, you have a strong faith, friend. Good luck to you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Yes, you have a strong faith, friend. Good luck to you!

---

I do not have any faith. I have logic and I know some facts. That is it.

Nothing else to reply? Well. I draw a picture of Dragonfly on my monitor. ;)

I have logic and know some facts, too. It doesn't stand in the way of having faith. We just have faith in different thing, that's all.
And should I start drawing little kids with red bandanas around their necks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

I have logic and know some facts, too. It doesn't stand in the way of having faith. We just have faith in different thing, that's all.
And should I start drawing little kids with red bandanas around their necks?

---

No, you have no right to draw kids (and those are not bananas :) ), because you quited from argument, as you have nothing to say.

Logic and knowing fact does not interfare with faith. But it does not mean that everyone got a faith. Some people survive without any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Do not mix evolution with breeding.
Dog is still a dog. No one succeded in turning it into a cat or a horse.

---

Well, humankind did successfully turn a wolf into a dog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

I never metioned anything about Einstein believing in a personal God. He believed in some type of intelligent creator.

---

Well, he sure as hell didn't believe that the earth was created in 7 days or that God designed each species separately from each other and then placed them upon the earth. Nor did he seek to calculate the age of the earth from studying the Bible.

If you're talking about evidence of intelligence behind the structure and development of the universe, then that's a different argument. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with that, but I don't think it's an outrageous position to take. It's important not to confuse the debate over the origin of the universe with that concerning the origin of living organisms on earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DDT

http://www.tricity.wsu.edu/~dcarrell/ei ... outgod.htm
http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/pearl-einste ... ingod.html
http://mypage.direct.ca/g/gcramer/relativity.html

---

Well, all I can say from reading some of these is that some people must be very insecure in their 'faith' if they need to try and misrepresent Einstein's concept of God and pretend it supports their own.

"I am grieved that no one ever offered Einstein the clear, biblical resolution to the paradox he posed. I am also sad that Einstein did not live long enough to see the accumulation of scientific evidence for a personal caring Creator"

Yes, of course, poor old Einstein was obviously misguided in not believing in a personal God :roll: Missed his place in heaven as I well I suppose :roll:

Actually, I have a lot to say, but do not see a reason why. In such "argument" thruth will not be revealed. It's just a matter of opinions. You have yours, and I have mine. Neither of us can prove that he(she) is right or neither of us is going to change his(her) mind, so - why bother?

Red bananas around necks - it is a funny picture, I admit. But I said bandanas. It seemed the closest analog to пионерский галстук in English-speaking american culture to me, anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CTPEKO3A

Actually, I have a lot to say, but do not see a reason why.

---

Why бы и not?