Father has Daughter Killed for Wearing Miniskirt

I just love our oil plan..."Lets drain dem damn towel heads dry of oil, then start drillin ar' own agin!"

It's too bad that when that finally comes around that we will be using synthetic lubricants and alternate fuel sources...plus there's always corn!

Thanks, shame it's the best one there :(

I'm gonna start writing something loony here, lol...^^

How do you know there's wind?? you can't see it, but you know it's there... or even better.. Love, all your 5 perception can't understood it, but you can feel it, or even worse, controlled by it...

If you want me to give you scientific base to the statement that God exists... I can't, probablity speaking there's every chance that God doesn't exist.... But I know he is, Pass it as a coincidence, an illusion or just luck, whatever you prefer... But since I was kid I've experienced many things with Him...

From being pulled back from the Death's door, to small everyday miracle... and yes, I'm not exaggerating, In a remote chance it interests you, I can list some of my OWN experience with you here... But yes, I know you have every right to pass it as luck, medical anomaly, or just assume that I was lying, just like all those people who wrote the bible...

As for the concept of creation by pure coincidence... yes, it's as likely as, here I quote, A tornado sweeping a junkyard, and on it's path left a flight-ready 747.... Which is, at a infinite scale of time, could be likely.... but how likely it is??

And regarding science, just like you said, it kept changing and progressing, what we take as scientific today could be regarded as wrong concept tomorrow...

And me, as someone who keen on science, and in fact majoring on something that heavily involves physics and math, the more I study, learn, and discover something new, the more it amazes me how it all was created, and the more I believe that there is God...

Sorry. I wanted to say "nucleic" acid there. Not amino acids - those would have come in a lot later.

Sure it's good to have a purpose in life. But using unfalsifiable statements about some invisible omnipotent being that controls everything to support and direct that purpose strikes me as very foolish. Why not make the purpose of your life "to constantly strive for a better purpose and make it up as I go along the way there"? That's what I did, and I found it quite empowering. And the fact that there is no easy way to visualise wave-particle duality isn't necessarily the fault of scientists - it may just turn out to be that difficult to comprehend for primate minds which have never needed to grasp quantum mechanical concepts during their evolutionary path for the past few millennia.

The main difficulty that many people seem to have with the concept of abiogenesis etc happening "purely by chance" is that they underestimate the enormous timescales involved. It's a bit similar to Star Trek, where Kirk takes a trip to the centre of the galaxy in one of the movies, goes OUTSIDE the galaxy on several occasions in the series etc. with relative ease: the writers did not fully comprehend the scale of the distances involved.

Expose some "primordial soup" containing precursor chemicals for amino acids to prehistoric Earth atmosphere for long enough and you'll get a human? Sure it''s unlikely to happen the exact same way again if you reran the whole process of evolution. But there is an infinitesimal nonzero chance that it could. And all an infinitesimal chance really needs to become reality is time - lots and lots of it. Maybe one amino acid electrostatically attracts another happening to float nearby, maybe a self-replicating pattern emerges after several centuries ... you see where I'm getting, I think.

As for time zero, of course no timescales were involved there. No TIME was involved. But for "how long", in whatever analogue to "time" there was at the Big Bang - I'm out of my depth here, I have to admit - had this densely compressed energy been so? There is no way of knowing. So far at least. But science marches on, as always. That's one thing I like about science, actually. When something comes along and contradicts the established theoretical framework, scientists (at least the good ones), don't hush it up and pretend it's not there to "ruin" their precious theory dogmata, but instead go "oh, that's interesting" and ADAPT their frameworks to fit the new evidence, sometimes even going so far as rewriting large parts of it from scratch.

Sorry If I've never went back here anymore, got an exam and stuffs to take care about... not to mention I'm not a devote fan of prolonged argument...^^

While I appreciate BuggyBY's opinion of me being open minded, which I think I am, and I am interested in these... thanks. But I think anon got a point that, bridging opinion of an atheist and a believer, is pretty much a moot cause...^^; And I do think we spoke enough and stated enough points to each other, I respect you guys and your stance, and appreciate that you guys decide to have a healthy argument rather than flaming me....

just a bit to the Big Fat LOL anon tho... I'm just drawing slight comparison, you know wind is there because it has been defined in common sense, but if not, maybe You'll take it as something divine, just how old people view lightning, or how gravity is defined before the Galilean times... As for God, tho it's unlikely you'll believe it, I'll state it anyway.. How do you explain countless miracles that happened to people daily... let's say medical miracles... there's tons happening out there, just google it, and you should find it not just in christian websites.... And before you claimed them as another Big Fat LOL, do notified that I was one of the people blessed with such miracle as well...

Thanks 4 d good talk, I'm out guys...

It's too bad that the chance of an amoeba forming in the primordial soup is a mathematical impossibility, the chance of which is 1 in 10 to the 4,478,296 power, or that "debunked 747" would hold more water. Not only that, when talking about "natural selection", only a small handful of mutations are possible at any one time. Any more than that and the animal won't survive. Or are we saying it's possible for a lizard to lay an egg that hatches a chicken? Ofcourse, without the complexity of the human brain with it's insane capacity to learn and remember, we would not even be able to contemplate whether or not there was a God (or Gods).

How's about the magnetic field being far too powerful for any life to have lived even so much as 10,000 years ago? Don't forget about the law of Thermodynamics that states all systems decay into a less energized state. What about there being no real links in the Evolutionary Record, since according to Evolutionary "Theory" there should be millions of species linking anything and everything.

Ever heard of the "Radio Halos" that are frozen in crystalline granite, produced from polonium-214 with a half-life of 0.000164 seconds? We are surrounded by so many mathematical IMpossibilities that the likelyhood of the entity known as God cannot be ignored just because you don't wish it to be so.

Dawkins has wonderfully debunked the junkyard 747 analogy. Considering all the intermolecular forces involved in the formation of replicating molecules, it is more like all the parts are magnetically drawn towards one another. Actually Dawkins made a lot better points than these, but I'm too tired to drag my copy of The God Delusion out now. I definitely recommend you read the book, even though you obviously don't seem to agree with most of it - it should at least give you a better understanding of what it is you disagree with.

The bit about "what we take as scientific today could be regarded as wrong concept tomorrow…", while often interpreted as a weakness by some, is one of the, if not THE strongest feature of science in my opinion. Science should never lay claim to having explained every little thing there is. It's just the best model we currently have. Replacing large parts of it with something completely different because of new evidence disproving the old parts only serves to KEEP it the best model currently achieved. Religion sadly does not do that, but insists (many adherents, but not all do) that a book with numerous internal inconsistencies is somehow eternal, unchanging, perfect and divinely revealed truth. Thus the whole Young-Earth creationism movement. If the Bible were continually updated (as opposed to hand-waving inconsistencies away) to reflect new evidence, I doubt I would have even half as many points of contention with its followers.. Granted, it would make priests' jobs a lot harder with all the pressure to know all of the latest version, but maybe it would make some of them actually work for their money and spend less time on abusing kids. Yeah, I admit that was a cheap shot.

Anon: A lot of people care, given the amount of time, research, paper, ink/toner and computer memory they spend on the issue. And while god him/her/itself seems indeed unfalsifiable, there's plenty of evidence contradicting literal interpretations of scripture.

Well duh, I'm not talking about the bible or anything like that, the bible is bullshit
When I say no one cares I mean no one here cares, anyone who is against the theory of evolution and believes in gods absolute rule will not change their mind no matter what you or anyone else says, so you're wasting your time

Sorry for ignoring you so long, lolipedofin.
"Anyway, as far as I see it, none of what the science has discovere (that has truly been approved and not just another concept people comes up with to explain stuffs they don’t understand) had invalidate anything written on the bible…"

There's a nice numbered 340-item list of science contradicting biblical texts here [http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html], though I admit some points there hold a lot more water than others.

Look man, no one is going to read any of those links you posted because no one cares
All that matters is that there is no proof that god exists and no proof that he doesn't
Religion is a joke, it's the same as believing in fictional characters like Superman, there's clearly no evidence he exists but you can't prove he doesn't exist

A short excerpt from my first link regarding transitional fossils:
"Some important factors prevent the formation of fossils from being common:

* Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions that preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms that do not live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.

* Many types of animals are fragile and do not preserve well.

* Many species have small ranges. Their chance of fossilization will be proportionally small.

* The evolution of new species probably is fairly rapid in geological terms, so the transitions between species will be uncommon.

Passenger pigeons, once numbered in the billions, went extinct less than 200 years ago. How many passenger pigeon fossils can you find? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion?"

*shrug* lolipedofin for one seems interested and open-minded enough. I'm not aiming to change any fundamentalist minds so much as to educate on what they're disagreeing with.

As for "no real links in the Evolutionary Record", i presume you mean transitional fossils in the fossil record. Do you know how rare a natural occurrence fossilisation tends to be? You don't sound like it. Have some links [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html] regarding the gaps [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html] in the record and the supposed absence [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/biblio/fossil_record.html] of transitional fossils [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html].

Whoops, I forgot about the Polonium radio halos [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/]. There.

W... whoa... Zelgadis4tw's comment amazed even me... but again, there will still be a rebuttal from the other side...

Anyway, let's just put it this way... as far as I concern, science and bible (sorry to other belief, but I only know of Christianity) never cross way before... well, except back at Galileo era, where people somehow misinterpret bible wrongly... The same doubt placed at Creationism, are true to abiogenesis and evolution.... unless you can show me in a million years, human had transformed into ET, or somehow, one of the hundred of species on earth that's quite advanced actually acquired intelligence at par with human being... then yes, I'll believe in evolution.

Err.. why did I stray to evolution again....

Anyway, as far as I see it, none of what the science has discovere (that has truly been approved and not just another concept people comes up with to explain stuffs they don't understand) had invalidate anything written on the bible...

More reading on abiogenesis and the fallacious junkyard 747 comparison here [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html]. In a nutshell, this image [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif] summarises the problem with the junkyard analogy.

ll I have to say about this is a big fat LOL really
How can you compare god to wind and senses?
How do we know wind is there? One simple answer would be wind turbines
When someone taps you on the shoulder you feel and possibly hear it and so on and so on, there has never been and most likely will never be any proof that god exists so I go back to my original statement
LOL

Oh boy. Zelgadis4tw. Junkyard 747, Thermodynamics, lizards laying chicken eggs AND the magnetic field in one post. Some talk.origins links are badly needed here, it seems.

First the tornado in a junkyard [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html]:
Thermodynamics: This entire section [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html], and especially this short and to-the-point rebuttal [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo].
Lizard laying chicken eggs: Addressed in January 2001 feedback [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jan01.html], relevant excerpt follows:
'Chickens evolved, or were domesticated, from jungle fowl, less than ten thousand years ago. Anything quite like a chicken evolved much later than organisms that laid eggs, indeed birds evolved from egg-laying organisms; either dinosaurs or something closely related to dinosaurs. And it happened while dinosaurs were still around. In evolutionary biology, this is called a "primitive" trait, or a plesiomorphy, and it is retained, among others, by turtles, reptiles and fish (reptiles and fish are not "natural" groups, but the common meaning is enough here).' For more evidence of lizards evolving into birds, google Archaeopteryx.
Magnetic field strength: Warning, it's a long read [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html].
And to top it off, the spontaneous amoeba formation: February 2001 feedback [http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/feb01.html]. Excerpt:
"(3) Living things do not spring fully formed from dead matter. The whole foundation of evolution is that living things are the result of cummulative changes to other living things. How life first began is not known, but it seems likely that the boundary from living to non-living is grey, and that the natural processes of change and development were involved throughout. We don't know exactly how life first began; but an evolutionist would generally NOT think life was suddenly formed from dead matter. That is more like the creationist position.

(4) The amoeba is a very complex and sophisticated organism, as much the end result of a long process of evolution as we are. There is no reason to think it is any like our distant one-celled ancestors. That we are related, by some remote common ancestor, is evidenced by commonalities in the genetic code used by humans, ameoba, and other life; but it is a very distant distant relationship all the same."

Well duh, no one said that they COULD be outlawed, just that they should be

Religion can't be outlawed for a number of reasons, mass riots being the most simple one. Humans tend to unite only in the face of certain danger, so don't expect different religions to come close to disappearing unless some alien civilization suddenly decides to wipe us out.

Also I like how you compared preaching to teaching science then said people are entitled to their opinion
Science = fact
God = opinion

"through his own word"
That's why I say it's shit, that book was clearly written by someone who wanted people to believe in god, not by someone acting upon god
Heck it might have even been a practical joke that ened up in people following it
I can accept people believing in god (and that is in fact the same as believing in a holy tree of a sarcred rock) but I won't agree with people saying that what's written in the bible is gods word
Quite a lot of life on earth is most likely coincidence, as far as I'm concerned god has as much chance of existing as vampires and other such things, I'm not saying god doesn't exist but I'm not saying god does exist
and no I don't think it's harsh, if you're gonig to devote your life to something unproven you need a good slap round the face

Well to me, it is... I do know it's written by people... I can go on elaborating the detail to that, but i guess you already know the point of what I'm trying to getting across... It's just a matter of whether you are willing to believe or not... As for me, I choose to believe it...

While from your point my belief is the same to worshiping a tree, to me it's different... I found purpose in living life like this... It's good to know that there's more to life than persevering throughout trivial 70 years, That there's reason, purpose and intention on me being born and living my life...

You can regard me as an idiot who chose to believe blindly, but the reverse could hold true from my standpoint... And maybe the one who need a good slap round the face is the other way around...

As for the science... back at 16th century, people believe Earth is flat and the center of the universe as a factual science... (I know that this is partly the fault of the church and misinterpretation of bible, but let's leave that out of discussion for now)

Until the dawn of 20th century science claim that time is absolute, until Einstein claim otherwise....

Science used to belief in abiogenesis, then claim atom as the smalles part of particle until they learn that atom can be broken into several parts... Do i need to mention how science still fail to create an imaginable visualization of wave-particle duality...

Science has went through groundbreaking progress since the age of renaissance, and throughout years, what people believe as scientific facts are rendered obsolete through new postulates and idea....

Let's talk about the beginning of it all.. How do you explain that at time = 0, somehow, by pure chance, a dense compressed energy and heat that's there for no reason, suddenly just blew and created universe as it is today... Up until today, no clear explanation of it has ever been accepted... not to mention that from that moment on, somehow by coincidence a living being was created, and even further develop intelligence..

Adding it up all in my head, I think science is no more unreliable as your idea of God... heck, for all I concern, I think it's too much of a coincidence unless someone mold it to be like it is today...

I don't get your point.... I do agree that the whole religion and it's existence as organization and hierarchy is wrong...

But I have to disagree with bible being "shit like that"

To worship God that I don't know would make me no different than old people who worship a holy tree or a sacred rock...

Fortunately I know my God through his own word in bible, preaching is fine by me too... everyone needs a teacher, or do you survive all this far by believing that physics should be like this and math should be like that... No, right?? there's someone to teach you all that, right??

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, So if you believe that there's nothing after death, That all exists by coincidence, that Flying Spaghetti Monster is the way and the truth... so be it, you're entitled to your opinion...

But to some people, including me, Our belief in God is what define our life. It's something comparable to life itself, to insult that would be harsh, don't you think so???

If the target of your defamation is religion, then by all means go ahead...

But if you are trying to say that believing in God should be outlawed then we got something to talk about...

If you just believe in god and pray by yourself at night or something fair enough, but the whole aspect of relgion is ridiculous
There is no proof for or against god so you should choose to believe or not yourself, not be preaches at and told that there are people chosen by god to write bibles shit like that

Don't call the almighty C.C a witch D=
She's more important than god!

Excuse me? There's no evidence that Islam greatly influences Arabic culture? Have you ever SEEN any bits of Arabic culture?

....and?

"It’s a culture thing not a religion thing"

No, it is both. The religion helps to corroborate the culture.

There's no evidence to support that, from what you're saying that would mean that taking away their religion would take away their strong views of pride
Religion is just used as an excuse, these things would still happen

by the way... when im talking about religious people, I mean the highly religious people, or people that dont question their faith in a serious manner.

i dont have a problem with moderately religious people that dont have religion dictate their actions.

Well said.