DARWINISM’S UNSCIENTIFIC FORMULA

Jump to Last Post 1-22 of 22 discussions (92 posts)
  1. daeemomin profile image59
    daeemominposted 16 years ago

    DARWINISM’S UNSCIENTIFIC FORMULA
    Plentiful Muddy Water + A Long Time + Many Coincidences = Civilization
    When the subject of evolution comes up, many people imagine that this is a scientific problem—and that for anyone less knowledgeable than scientists, Darwinism is impossible to understand. They assume it’s pointless to argue the issue, one way or the other. Indeed, Darwinists employ Latin words and scientific terms generally unfamiliar to the public in order to encourage this mistaken idea. They engage in complicated descriptions and frequently resort to demagoguery and hollow slogans in order to give the impression they are discussing a highly scientific matter.

    In fact, however, Darwinism’s basic claim is completely unscientific, and its logical poverty is so obvious that even primary school age children can see it. According to Darwinism, in some unexplained manner, the first cell supposedly formed in the Earth’s primeval environment, in a pool of muddy water. And out of that single cell, a literally endless series of coincidences later gave rise to animals, plants, human beings and civilizations. In other words, all of mankind, as well as the entire plant and animal kingdoms, are supposedly the work of an ideal quantity of mud, a long period of time and plentiful coincidences.
    One would have to lack any facility to understand and reason in order to believe that through coincidences, mud eventually gave rise to civilizations. Anyone capable of thinking and drawing appropriate conclusions can’t possibly be taken in by Darwinist errors.


    According to Darwinists, who are suffering from an obvious logical deficiency, these materials, each one of which is unconscious, gave rise to human beings possessed of reason and conscience, who think, love, feel compassion, possess sound judgment, produce paintings and statues, compose symphonies, write novels, build skyscrapers, construct nuclear reactors, discover the causes of diseases and manufacture drugs to cure them, or engage in politics. They claim that when sufficient time had passed, lions, tigers, rabbits, deer, elephants, cats, dogs, moths, flies, crocodiles and birds all evolved by chance from muddy water.

    A whole range of fruits and vegetables, with their own unique tastes and smells—oranges, strawberries, bananas, apples, grapes, tomatoes, peppers—flowers with their matchless appearances and other plants all emerged from that same mud. In short, ever since Darwin’s time, countless articles, papers, films, newspaper reports, magazine articles and television programs have repeated the evolutionist scenario in which all of life emerged by chance from mud.

    In other words, if you ask a Darwinist “How did our civilization arise?” or, “How did such a wide range of life forms come into being?” or, “How did mankind come into existence?” the essential answer you will receive is this: Coincidences gave rise to all these things from mud, over the course of time.
    The Darwinist scenario of “life emerging from mud” can no longer deceive people. Any rational person can immediately see the nonsensical premise of the theory of evolution.


    One would doubtless need to be devoid of reason or lack any facility for understanding in order to believe such a tale. Yet surprisingly, that very irrational and illogical theory has had its adherents for many years and is still being propagated constantly under a scientific guise.

    The Lies of Darwinism Have Been Unmasked
    The theory of evolution, first proposed under the primitive conditions of the 19th century, has been disproved by advances in science and technology. It has been recognized that Darwin’s claims are totally unrealistic:
    Natural selection and mutations, cited as the mechanisms that drive the process of evolution, have no effects of the kind envisaged by Darwinists. In short, it is impossible for them to give rise to new species.

    The final death blow to Darwinism was dealt by the fossil record. Darwin claimed that all the millions of different life forms had come into being through descent from a supposed single common ancestor.

    In order for his claim to be verified, there should be traces in the fossil record—an irrefutable document of natural history—of this supposed primitive ancestor and of the various life forms that developed from it. For example, if all mammals were descended from reptiles, as evolutionists maintain, then there would have to be fossil remains of a series of half-mammalian, half-reptilian life forms.

    To date, millions of fossils, belonging to a great many species, have been unearthed during excavations. Yet not a single one showing a transition between species has ever been found. Every fossil ever found shows that each living thing emerged suddenly, with all its characteristics complete. In other words, every species of plant and animal was created.

    Confronted by this fact, evolutionists have resorted to various falsehoods. They have produced hoaxes—counterfeit, artificial fossils that have come to be regarded as disgraces to paleontology. They have tried to deceive the lay public by tampering with genuine fossils of extinct life forms and inventing a series of imaginary scenarios. One of the best known of them is the so-called “evolution of the horse.”

    Fossils belonging to entirely different species that once lived in India, South America, North America and Europe were arranged in order of size—from small to large—in the light of evolutionist imaginations. So far, different researchers have come up with more than 20 different equine evolution scenarios. There is no agreement among them regarding all these completely different family trees. The one point they commonly agree upon is their belief that a dog-like creature known as Eohippus (or Hyracotherium) that lived in the Eocene epoch (54 to 37 million years ago) was the very first ancestor of today’s horses. However, Eohippus—portrayed as the ancestor of the horse and that became extinct millions of years ago—is almost identical to the present-day animal known as the hyrax, which looks nothing like a horse and is totally unrelated to that species.

    Moreover, it has been established that breeds of horse living today have also been discovered in the same rock strata as Eohippus. (See Francis Hitching’s The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Ticknor and Fields, 1982, pp. 30-31.) This means that the horse and its supposed ancestor were both living at the same time, which proves that the horse never underwent any such process as evolution.

    The invalidity of the “equine series” proposed by evolutionists also applies to birds, fish, reptiles and mammals, in short, to all living things, to their supposedly common ancestors and supposed family trees. It has been determined that every fossil species suggested as being the ancestor of some other living thing either belongs to an independent extinct life form or is the result of evolutionists tampering with fossils of the species in question.

    Darwinism has been exposed as the most wide-ranging and astonishing deception in the world’s history. That millions have been taken in by this deception, as if hypnotized, and have been influenced by all of Darwinism’s illogical claims, is truly miraculous. The support lent to the theory of evolution and the acceptance it has enjoyed up to now are the result of tricks played on mankind by satan, who urges vast numbers of people towards Darwinism.

    Until recently, no one had the courage to unmask this ruse of satan’s and to publicize the true facts. But in the present century, the response to this deception has finally been laid out in full detail, and the public has been made fully aware of the state of affairs. By the will of God, the collapse of Darwinism has advanced beyond any point of recovery. Indeed, that is the fundamental reason for the panic in the Darwinian global empire.

    replyreport
    1. mohitmisra profile image61
      mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you this was educational .smile

      replyreport
      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        What did you learn Mo?

        replyreport
        1. mohitmisra profile image61
          mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          So much, a fascinating write.Not the satanic part.Dont know if this  thing Satan actually exists.I think when a human is good then he is god and whene he is bad then he is Satan

          replyreport
          1. mohitmisra profile image61
            mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            The ultimate plan,
            I just dont understand.

            We are all somehow put together,
            Particles of dust,water,vacum and ether.

            Trillions and trillions of pieces so perfectly in place,
            Which includes the human race. smile

            replyreport
          2. Mark Knowles profile image58
            Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            No - specifically, what did you learn?

            replyreport
            1. mohitmisra profile image61
              mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              Read it.

              replyreport
              1. Mark Knowles profile image58
                Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                I did read it. I asked what you learned.

                This was copied and pasted here by the same person who told you that you have zero understanding about his religion and are completely wrong about everything you say.

                So, I wondered what you learned.

                replyreport
                1. mohitmisra profile image61
                  mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  I dont care what he said,when I think he has written well and deserves credit I will give it to him.Why cant you because you are for Darwins theory and he is not.I dont know whether he copy pasted this,its not my problem.
                  What I have learned is knowledge of the spirit,so on this forum you are the kid for me and not the other way around.

                  replyreport
                  1. Mark Knowles profile image58
                    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                    Mo, I was not attacking you, I was genuinely asking what you learned.

                    He did not write this. If you look at the responses, there is a link to the person he stole it from. What credit should I give him exactly? The ability to copy and paste some one else's rather silly ideas that involve trying to persuade people that a valid scientific theory is actually satan's propaganda and a lie?

                    Sorry you have been offended by a simple question. I will draw my own conclusions about what you learned.

                    replyreport
  2. gamergirl profile image88
    gamergirlposted 16 years ago

    This piece of tripe doesn't belong in the religion forum, and you could've linked to it rather than copying and pasting the entire messy article.  *sigh*

    replyreport
  3. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Demonstrating a complete ignorance of Darwin's theories and an inability to understand the most basic of scientific principals is no longer an excuse. Please read this thread for a better understanding:

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572

    Perhaps then you might be qualified to have an opinion on this.

    Sorry, I cannot write in Arabic, so you will have to make do.

    replyreport
  4. Make Money profile image68
    Make Moneyposted 16 years ago

    Sorry gamegirl but if Daeemomin's post doesn't belong in the religion forum then no posts that try to proselytize the theory of evolution does either.

    Let's face it, evolutionists always claim that their belief in the theory of evolution is not a belief system.

    Mark you have to admit that Daeemomin's post is quite the striking defeat for the theory of evolution.

    Daeemomin if you go through the thread that Mark has posted above you will see that I have posted quite a few reasons why the theory of evolution should not be taught.

    And from page 59 and further on Mark's Atheism Rules thread there are numerous other reasons posted why evolution should not be taught.

    Daeemomin I don't think these HubPages forums were originally meant for a place to trash each others religions.  Or maybe they were but lets not fall into that trap.   

    In the spirit of peace I'd like to share this with you.  This is a web site from the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth.  A lot of people do not believe the 19 Muslims story that we have been fed.  And this is still growing around the world. 

    They believe it was meant to put one religion against the other.  For that reason I am not going to get into debates in this forum any more with members of other religions. 

    Here's another web site that shows 100 Professors that Question the 9/11 Commission Report.

    And this one shows Senior Military, Intelligence, and Government Officials that Question the 9/11 Commission Report.

    This is not a conspiracy theory like some would like us to believe.  There is just too much evidence that points elsewhere.  We should be coming together to get to the bottom of this.

    Mike

    replyreport
    1. Make Money profile image68
      Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      So are you saying that the belief in the theory of evolution is a religion now?

      How can this section of the forum be a healthy and hopefully helpful discussion and knowledge sharing regarding religion itself and it's many subheadings if just about every thread that is started in this forum is attacked by atheists that try to proselytize the theory of evolution?

      replyreport
  5. gamergirl profile image88
    gamergirlposted 16 years ago

    Make Money,

    I would venture to say that if you go back to the initial posts made by myself and one other when this forum was opened up (it was my request that was the last made before the section was added, so I can only think that it had been mentioned numerous times before) you'll see that the original intention for this section of the forum was the healthy and hopefully helpful discussion and knowledge sharing regarding religion itself and it's many subheadings.

    Questionable and thoughtless anti-evolution propaganda doesn't quite fall under the heading of religion, especially when simply copied and pasted from another website and dumped here with no preamble or further reinforcement of points by the OP.

    replyreport
  6. gamergirl profile image88
    gamergirlposted 16 years ago

    Make Money,

    I'm not saying that at all.  Please do not put words in my mouth.  Thank you.

    replyreport
  7. Shadesbreath profile image76
    Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

    Daeemomin,

    I can assume you care deeply about the Bible or Qu'ran's version of the origin of man (or if not, some other text, but the point remains the same despite my approach being pointed at Christianity - thanks Mark lol), and despite some of the rhetorical stuff you use to insult people who haven’t dismissed evolution as easily as you have, I understand why you are riled up enough to call people whose minds are willing to examine ideas and question the nature of life things like childlike and hypnotized.  Hopefully now that you’ve gotten that out (or pasted it in and hopefully vented vicariously through the work of another author), I hope maybe you might at least for a moment consider this:

    The Bible gives an account of man being created from the elements of the Earth.  Christianity  also lists an account of mankind being created from the elements of the Earth (is not mud comprised of earth?).  In addition, I believe it is the Sixth day that God created man and all the other critters of land too.  Evolution doesn’t fight this at all.  When that first amino acid was given life by God, He had in fact created all the creatures at the same moment. So, at this point evolution and the Bible are in perfect harmony, the only thing subject to debate is time frame and means.  Frankly, it is not difficult at all to reconcile evolution with Genesis (in fact, I may write a hub on it).

    Now, as a Christian or Muslim or whatever faith you hold you must have at one point or another run into other Christians or Muslims who interpret the Bible or Qu'ran differently than you, people who wrangle meaning out of the holybook in interpretations differently than yours.  I hope you will grant me this assumption, as I know I have met many Christians and Muslims from so many of the multiplicity of various denominations and differing theological approaches of all the assorted churches and mosques that abound and can only assume you have met them too.  I’ve listened to them debate, sometimes most angrily, the meanings of the things they are all reading out of the same book (albeit there are many variations and different translations of that book too, but let’s assume all the different versions are at least roughly trying to get at the same thing … although I recognize that assumption might be dangerous as you might feel that some believers are intentionally corrupting the word of God by translating the Bible or  Quran in their own designs, so, please, try not to let that distract from my point, I’ll give you that possibility gladly).  So, my point is, allowing for the various and confusing messages being given out by all the different denominations, it is at least plausible that the time frame and methodology of God in his creation could have been either A) mistranslated by someone, or B) misunderstood by someone, and therefore the creation did not necessarily have to have been an instantaneous leap out of the ground by Adam and Eve like Christians assert.  It seems at least worthy of a moment’s consideration that the men involved with getting the modern versions of the most popular holy books might have, in their primitive state (you mention how in Darwin’s time man was primitive as a reason to not take Darwin seriously, so, given that Darwin had some 1800 and change years to become less primitive than the people preceding him who wrote down the Biblical stuff in the years prior to and just after Christ’s life and perhaps a bit more recently for Islam) not fully comprehended what the original recipient of God’s message really meant, the original recipient didn’t fully comprehend it, or in translations along the way, the message became confused. 

    Basically I’m suggesting that 1) Who are we to say with such condescending certainty that God did not plant the seed of life in that pool of mud that you describe knowing full well that it would grow precisely as He planned?

    And given that 2) It has been His way to create life from a seed in every instance recordable by science (plant and animal), why must this at least possible explanation be so subject to ridicule and insulting rhetoric from some segments of Christianity and other religious groups? 

    Furthermore, just a note on how evolution works:
    Scientists don’t use Latin to confuse people; they use it because through it they can be very, very specific about species and their subgroups.  Just saying Horse, as you have shown, does not really say anything.

    Secondly, you have to realize that all skeletons are complete in that they are the skeleton of completed creatures.  Evolution does not take place within the lifetime of one single animal.  A mutation to a gene that affects a gamete might, and does, but the process of that mutated gene becoming the foundation of a new phase of natural selection does not occur instantly, it occurs slowly, over thousands and thousands of years.  So, obviously you don’t get “Ta-dah” skeletons that somehow manifest some sort of moving slideshow of change, like, the bones sit there and shift as you look at them, trapped in an eternal process of change bridging two species.  It doesn’t work like that. 

    On top of that, you do realize that evolution took place over hundreds of millions of years (I realize that you might immediately say, “No, the whole thing happened in 6,000 years.”  If you say this, I will just nod and say, ok, you refuse to accept chemistry and physics in addition to evolution and at that point I will resign your opinions to the category of people to be pitied but who are not so out of touch with reality just yet as to require institutionalization so long as they don’t hurt anyone or themselves.  The main point here is that you understand that what you want for proof is for archaeology and paleontology to literally find every skeleton that has ever been.  That is literally what you require for evolution to “prove itself” and until such time as that, it is to be considered junk science.

    Science, unlike many religions, totally and completely invites skepticism.  In fact, it is the entire premise of science that nothing be taken as “fact” until such time as it can be proved with unequivocal certainty.  When you refer to Darwinism as this large body of unified beliefs and understands and make it sound as if they are marching in unison against God, you have chosen to manufacture a persona to evolution that likens them to a religious zealot who stands resolute declaring that he or she has The Truth of God with absolute certainty.

    This is simply not the case.  While you may find the scattered scientist or group who declare that evolutionary science has found all the answers, for the most part, that will be a massive misrepresentation.  Your non-zealous evolutionary subscriber merely looks at the evidence accumulated to date and recognizes that there is at least a pattern suggested there that is reasonable and very, very well supported by mounds and mounds of data that can be examined, seen and touched.  There is not one credible evolutionary scientist out there who will say, “We have figured everything out absolutely.”  That’s just not the case.  And none of them are concluding that evolution occurred without the hand of God to design or guide it.  None of them do.  There is simply no evidence to support the absence of God in evolutionary processes and no scientist will ever claim he has evidence that God did not have a hand in it if he or she is actually a scientist.  Plainly put, the ontology of God is a debate outside of evolution, not within it.

    A note on Coincidence:

    You mention the word coincidence throughout your comment.  Yes, the mutation of a gene can indeed be a coincidence.  They can happen because of a disease, from radiation, from exposure to certain chemical compounds, or just plain randomly.  That is the essence of the term “random mutation.”  However, it is NOT actually a coincidence that makes a particular trait become “successful” in terms of evolution.  It is inevitable.  Let me give an example, the standard one, using a giraffe and a hyper-simplified scenario.

    So a little horselike critter lives in a time of drought.   Plants aren’t growing in abundance and food becomes scarce.  The bark and leaves of bushes are eaten down and soon the only remaining foliage is often in the higher places of bushes and shrubs and small trees.  The longest necks of the tallest horses has those animals eating longer than the shorter ones.  The shorter ones die out.  Now, why are some horses taller than others?  Random genetics, perhaps a mutation or perhaps the standard variation within a species overarching genetic code.  But, the bottom line is, only the tall ones make it through the drought.  If the drought goes on longer than the advantage of height will accommodate, and the tall ones that remain eat all the food they can reach, they will die out.  However, if the drought abates in time, then the species remains in its tallest variation and therefore tall genes are highly dominant and will thus be perpetuated.  If there were no tall horse-like critters at all, they would have died out and nobody would have ever heard of them.  So, the existence of giraffes is NOT a coincidence but an inevitability.  They were the only creatures that could have been here today because they are the only creature that was capable of surviving the environmental conditions that prevailed in a period of history.  Not coincidence; the only possible outcome.  It was them or nothing.

    Yes, this is a simplified example, but it explains how it works.  You’ll notice there is nothing in there about God.  You can insert God if you like, it changes nothing.  God chose the most worthy by making them tall at birth or whatever you want.  Nothing changes at all.  You can even place all the creatures that we have today (or even dinosaurs if you’d like) on Noah’s ark.  God could have chosen none of them singularly, but had the whole thing lined out already when he planted that first seed in the primordial mud.

    Anyway, beyond all that, just wanted to point out that evolution is entirely scientific.  You may not agree with its conclusions and theories, but that is the nature of a theory, something to be disproven.  You’ll not be able to get rid of it until you can come up with some evidence for people to see other than the pages of your book though, because the fossil evidence, the chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy and various subset sciences all lend themselves empirically to the theory with more compelling weight than do people waving dusty holy books saying, “Nuh uh, you’re wrong.”   That does not mean evolution has it right and all figured out, it just means that at least evolution can provide millions of pages of carefully gathered evidence that can been seen and touched and verified, where the people yelling insults and calling us childlike and implying how we are morons easily hypnotized by liars have only a many-times translated book written by people far more “primitive” than Darwin and the great minds that have put his ideas to the test of academic rigor over the last hundred or so years.     

    (yes, I was bored enough to write a response of length to rival his.. and even more bored and went through to modify it thanks to Mark's pointing out this particular zealotry might not be a Christian.)

    replyreport
  8. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    We can go back and do some editing.

    Christian = Muslim
    Bible = Koran

    It'll still work.

    Far as I can tell, they are the same and TRUE anyway....... lol

    replyreport
    1. Shadesbreath profile image76
      Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Done... I made it generic.  The argument is, as I said, not against any of the faiths anyway, so I don't care whose holybook is being thumped, the argument is the same.

      replyreport
      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I have said a hundred times, my atheism came before I got evolution. Doesn't seem to matter. They think it is an attack on their faith.

        It is not an attack, it is just science. Gone are the days they could burn you at the stake or stone you to death for heresy, so they resort to this rubbish.

        A step in the right direction I guess lol

        replyreport
        1. Shadesbreath profile image76
          Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          I should write a hub on how well Genesis and evolution fit together.  I wrote a short paper on it a long time ago.  I wonder if it's already been done.  I should look before I bother.

          replyreport
          1. Mark Knowles profile image58
            Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            You will still get burned at the stake. big_smile

            I personally see no issues - until you try and take it literally. Then you are in all sorts of trouble.

            Even the Catholic church caved way back. I mean, seriously - literally took two by two dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? lol

            Not so much of an issue where I come from, but when you start keeping your kids home and teaching them that evolution is the work of the devil?

            Child abuse......

            replyreport
            1. Shadesbreath profile image76
              Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              Yeah, I think you and I agreed on that stuff before.

              replyreport
  9. sunforged profile image76
    sunforgedposted 16 years ago

    Where the Op lifted his question/diatribe from:

    http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/unsc … ormula.php

    about the writer/site (the real one)

    This web site has been developed with the aim of promoting and publicizing the works of Harun Yahya, a prominent Turkish thinker and author. His books have attracted great attention both in Turkey and worldwide. In the 90's especially, the works of Harun Yahya have been a means of intellectual awakening for many Muslims, and non-Muslims alike, in the face of the illusions of the modern age. In other words, the name Harun Yahya is an invitation to the truth.


    also lifted and poste dhere: but failed  to get any comments


    http://groups.google.com/group/creation … 4923?pli=1

    some info on original author

    (probably biased)

    Yahya doesn't think Allah is above everything, but part of the real world. As such, he is at odds with real Islamic scholars. Misguided Muslims constantly refer to Yahya's fallacious arguments against Evolution, and thus help promote his agenda.

    I am planning more videos to expose Harun Yahya. Not only does he have an agenda which is at odds with real Islam, but he also spreads lies about Science and scientific theories. All this from someone with no relevant education or scientific background. His only education seems to be as an interior designer!

    research by:
    -Josh

    replyreport
    1. sunforged profile image76
      sunforgedposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      after doing some additional research, most likely all of this posters hubs are plagiarism - as they are easily found in the exact same format all over the web - or this poster is amazingly prolific and just uses hubpages as another posting site - whats ironic is his post "is the quaran plagiarized" is one that is undoubtedly plagiarized

      replyreport
      1. sunforged profile image76
        sunforgedposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        In conclusion, DONT FEED THE TROLL

        replyreport
  10. Shadesbreath profile image76
    Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

    lol, I was bored.

    replyreport
  11. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 16 years ago

    The "theory of origins" has still not been adequately addressed. It's one thing to volley to and fro about evolution this and evolution that, without going back further. All you "scientifics" still have no plausible theory/answer to the very beginning!!!
    As the topic started out about life "evolving" from (mud), or some primordial soup, none of you touched it! Why? I read Marks link where he posted his perspective on this, yet, there to, the (actual) origin issue was completely skipped! Why?
    Could it be that you don't have an adequate answer? Lets face it, with ALL the advances in biological technology, both knowledge and equipment, chemicals etc. we have not been able to "create life" in it's simplest form. Nothing!
    Yet, we the (general average) public have to accept that nature knew better, and did what none of the best minds today can do, and did it out of simple "mud" hmm
    At least we (christians) acknowledge an intelligent, all powerful wise ......being as being its source. You give that acknowledgment (by inference at least) to nothing(ness). hmm
    Good luck! smile

    replyreport
    1. Shadesbreath profile image76
      Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      The only thing "skipped," Aka-dj, was you skipped reading my post.  What you suggest we have not said has been said.  Yes, my post was long like the original post was, and perhaps since you saw it wasn't in agreement with your bliefs right off, you skipped it. I can only guess.  However, if you're going to say stuff like "you scientifics still have no plausible theory/answer ... as the topic started out about life 'evolving' from (mud)" then you should actually have read  what we "scientifics" wrote before you say that.  Otherwise people will get the impression you are one of those knee-jerk fanatics who just like to blow zealous wind out of your hole in support your beliefs without actually engaging in the WHOLE discussion.

      smile

      Oh, and if you do actually read it, don't come back and say you don't believe me, because your question is about a "plausible" theory, which I have provided.  It is plausible.  And if you want to say it is unscientific, then you have no idea that science is already activating amino acids with electricity now and has for some time.  The rest of the general idea regarding this can be found here: Organic Source if you don't mind a wikipedia summation.  You can find better more indepth sources if you'd like on your own from there.

      replyreport
      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I have gone back and re-read your (lengthy) post. I have to say you don't have anything (remotely) convincing! Your reference to "origins" is simply that God (could have ) seeded "mud". I think this shows up your lack of understanding of what the Bible actually says.
        It says in "six" days... Any scholar worth his salt agrees, that the original (hebrew) writing means a "literal" 24hr days. I have studied the "gap theory", and "god's hand in evolution" etc. It does not hold water!
        And your example of a giraffe, well, it sounds more like a child's bedtime story, than a "scientific" hypothesys.
        (I have received spam that does a better job of convincing me that if I take their pills, certain parts of my body will get bigger.)
        There is no half-giraffe. There never was a half man. Keep looking. They will not find one.
        But just for an exercize, try reading the summary of important points, at
        http://www.ancientdays.net/fivepillars.htm
        I don't want to convince you that I am right, but to demonstrate that more questions arise than answers.
        The question of origins, therefore stays in the "faith" realm. My opinion! hmm

        replyreport
        1. Shadesbreath profile image76
          Shadesbreathposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          You asked for a plausible theory, I gave you a quick treatment of the probable one presented by science (and therefore, by definition, it's plausible too).  You don't have to believe it.  My point was not to convince you: I am well aware that you have already received all the information you will ever need and slammed the door shut on any new or even speculative ideas.  I'm happy for you.  Hemmingway shot himself when he came to the conclusion that he knew everything there was to know about writing.  I can't imagine anything more depressing that having all the answers you think you have about life.

          replyreport
  12. Christoph Reilly profile image68
    Christoph Reillyposted 16 years ago

    Does that make him the "Ayatrollah"?

    replyreport
  13. gamergirl profile image88
    gamergirlposted 16 years ago
    replyreport
    1. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Evening an morning Genesis 1;5 dark=nigt, light=day. etc.
      Tell any child this  and what will they think? "Oh no, it must have meant thousnads or millions of years"
      This is the very place we get our "week". You know, Sunday- saturday. Why does it have to be so complicated?
      Besides all that, if God did seed"mud", then why does He not say so right there in Genesis?
      "Hey guys, I made you as a seed in mud, which became a cell, then a fish, then a monkey, then hrer you are"? lol

      replyreport
      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Wow. I must admit to being rather surprised at your responses aka-dj,

        I hadn't realized you were quite the hardcore, whatever-it-is-you-people-call-yourselves. But this rather staggering display of ignorance is almost hard to ignore smile

        The place we get our days of the week?

        Moons' day ( goddess of the moon)
        Tyr's day (Norse god Tyr)
        Wodan's day (Or Odin)
        Thor's day (Another Norse god)
        Frigg day (A Norse Goddess this time)
        Saturn's day (Roman god)
        Sun's day (Roman holiday)

        Tell any child that god created the world in 6 days and dinosaurs are a lie, and you will get laughed in your face.

        Telling them that the dinosaurs got on to Noah's ark and keeping them out of school to ensure they don't learn otherwise will backfire on you people once they are allowed out in the world. I am pretty sure some of them will start to think for themselves at some point.

        Then they are going to despise you.

        And you guys wonder why christians get such a bad rap. lol

        Jurassic park has done more damage to your rather un-reasonable beliefs than any atheist could ever do smile

        "No, no we didn't come from mud, it was magic instead." lol lol lol

        So, as you seem to have no idea what the theory of evolution says, just as a matter of interest:

        What makes the idea that we came from mud any less plausible than your "theory"?

        I do recommend reading  just a little bit about evolution before completely dismissing it as a lie. You never know, you might actually find out what it says.

        replyreport
        1. Make Money profile image68
          Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          lol  Are you trying to blame Christianity for what we call the days of the week now Mark?

          The days are just called what you posted in English and other Germanic languages.

          replyreport
          1. Mark Knowles profile image58
            Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            No Mike, I was responding to aka-dj who told me the bible gave us the days of the week:



            He is a big fan of making things as dumb as possible. He calls it simple, but what he means is dumb. lol

            Every one knows god seeded dust, not mud........

            Sheesh.

            replyreport
            1. Make Money profile image68
              Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              Well Mark, aka-dj is right.  We got the amount of days that are in a week from God through the Bible.  Man just named them.

              replyreport
              1. Mark Knowles profile image58
                Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                lol

                I forgot god gave us the seven day week. I am strangely confused though. The seven day week was observed by many cultures, including the Babylonian, Persian and Romans.

                This, as I am sure you know, was somewhat before the world was created.

                How did this happen?

                replyreport
                1. Make Money profile image68
                  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh Mark I thought you knew the Bible better than that.

                  Nimrod (Nemrod) started the kingdom of Babylon.  From Genesis 10 we see that Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah (Noe) through Cham (Ham) and Chus.  Noah brought the stories of the 7 day creation, Adam and Eve and everything that happened before the great flood with him on the arch. 

                   

                  The Tower of Bable is in the Bible.  Maybe that's why we don't understand each other. lol 

                  The kingdom of Judah was taken into captivity by the Babylonians and the Persians let them go after the Persians over threw the Babylonians.  Obviously the Romans came after that. smile

                  Mark some people that find there line in the Milesian Genealogies from the Annals of the Four Masters can actually trace their line back to Adam.  Milesius was a descendant of Jacob.  Think Jacob's Stone or the Coronation Stone that your Queeny was coronated while sitting on.  No doubt your Queeny and mine (yuck) has traced her line back to Adam.  Millions of people on the planet today can do the same.  I see myself under the Line of Heremon - branch off to O'Donnell- number 99.  So I could trace my line back to Adam with a bit of research if I so desired.  But like Paul says in Galations 6 ancestory doesn't make a bit of difference any more.  smile

                  Lionswhelp and I have started a discussion about this on page 3 in the thread titled RELIGION VS THE BIBLE.

                  Mike

                  replyreport
  14. Christoph Reilly profile image68
    Christoph Reillyposted 16 years ago

    What always gets me, aka-dj, is your kind (radical religious believers - the crazier the theory the better) are always telling us (us being we who are open minded, generous, caring, and good looking) "where is yout proof? Show me your proof!" Then when you produce "proof" for your wild claims, it is a quote from the Bible, or it is not in the bible.  You say if such and such is so, then why didn't God say so right there in Genesis? My friend, God didn't say anything in the bible. He didn't write it and you don't know who did, yet you accept it as "proof" (as long as it suits you, that is).  You have faith, which is basically believing in something that is against all logic and probability. Good thing you have that "faith." Otherwise, you'd be sunk.

    replyreport
  15. sunforged profile image76
    sunforgedposted 16 years ago

    I dont like to get to involved in issues of faith - but when someone attempts to cite a source like
    "creationist.org" as solid I would like to suggest attempting to gain some skills in historical methods and biblical scholarship.

    Since you used "scholar worth his salt" heres the impressions of one who is:

    Genesis: Is of course (hopefully of course) a book that was passed on orally for innumerable generations before ever being put to paper.

    If you have ever read the bible from start to finish (have you?) or at least Genesis, as it is the book you are using as your sole evidence - you will notice it has 3 distinct and separate Creation accounts composed in the single book.

    This is information I was originally taught by in a Intro to Religious Thought Class
    see their credentials here (http://www.sbu.edu/scholarsandresearchers.aspx)

    Biblical scholars characterize these accounts as:

    "
    Most critical scholars hold that Genesis is made up of three major written sources or traditions that were put together in the final form that we now know it by the Redactor in the 5th Century B.C.

    The Yahwist Tradition (J): This early source dates from 1000-922 B.C. during the period of David and Solomon. The J tradition relates the Yahwistic faith of the desert with its drive toward monotheism. J takes over Babylonian myths and adapts them to Yahwism. J relates back into primeval history to show Israel's ancestors' origins in humankind. The single thread that connects all of the data in the J tradition is that of "election". J is the originating genius of Genesis as a whole-but J is not the author of the final book.

    The Elohist Tradition (E): The written source derives from the careful use of "Elohim" or "God" in the pre-Sinai material. The E tradition presents the northern Israel viewpoint as distinct from the southern-dominated J tradition. E was probably written during the reconstruction period following the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C. The E tradition was joined to Genesis largely as a sup-plement and modification of the J tradition. E displays sensitivity to certain theological nuances that are sometimes lacking in J and P.

    The Priestly Tradition (P): This source receives its name from the priestly interests, particu-larly the legal sections and genealogies in Genesis. P has imposed upon the entire Book of Gene-sis the order and system by which we identify it as a work in its own right in its present form. The priestly concerns are of the exile and post-exilic circles from 587-400 B.C. The monotheism of P is hard-line because it had been hard-won, hammered out fine on the anvil of bitter experience. The Priestly tradition reflects the southern interests of Israel because it associates Abraham exclusively with Hebron, and the Exodus narrative places the revelation to Moses at Sinai, not at Horeb.

    The Redactor (R): The hand that readies Genesis in its final form is that of a redactor and not of an author. Very few fresh ideas can be assigned to the Redactor. The Redactor accepted or rejected what he found in the three sources. "



    So from the very beginning its hard to see the text as infallible, but assuming it is:

    Your claims about the unerring validity of a day "in the original language hebrew" being our reckoning of 24 hours.

    I suggest reading this:

    http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/genesis.htm

    a line by line showing and analysis of the varied voices, original hebrew terms possible translations and interpretions.

    To make it even more valid as a source it also shows both the hebrew and catholic opinions on these IDEAS

    in case you have trouble with actual biblical scholarship (it can be kind of dry) here is just one comment on "day"


    1) The Hebrew word "yom" translated day can also mean a varying period of time, an age, or an epoch.

    2) The Hebrew word "eveb" translated evening and "boker" translated morning can also mean start and finish or beginning and ending.


    Heres a fun idea that comes from The Kabbalahic tradition - GOD is an acronym (it is always capitalized) Gomer - Beauty, Oz -Widom , Dabar - Intelligence   - as the true name of god is to sacred for the ears or mouth of man


    You should also consider studying researching "similarities in creationist accounts across ancient cultures" if you make it through reading any of these suggested sources then you can comment on "scholars worth their salt" and original hebrew...or try just reading the bible.

    Oh and as a fun compromise - even if each day of creation is a day - that does not mean a period of time, even epochs did not occur between days- the days do not have to be consecutive, merely 7 days in which god involved his /her/its hand in the process-like taking a cake out of the oven in 45 minutes and putting icing on it - step 1 and step 2 - but anyone who has ever done it knows you must wait a undefinable period of time between the steps for the cake to cool.

    I cant believe I wrote this much - i know with your creationist.org reading habits you will never make it this far

    replyreport
    1. sunforged profile image76
      sunforgedposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Looks like I killed it, sorry ;(

      replyreport
    2. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Guess what?
      I read it to the end! Woohoo! It was a long post.
      I'm so glad I have "simple" faith. The (very) same Bible says that God has "hidden these things from the 'wise' but revealed them to the 'simple". I re-state my position, " Why do (we) have to complicate things?" If the only way to get to eternal life was through the level of intelect required to understand (even half) of these points of view you present, NO-ONE would qualify!
      PS  I cited that website, only as a (simple) overview that sums up what I believe. You do with it what you want. That's the whole purpose of this forum, discussion.

      replyreport
    3. Make Money profile image68
      Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Sunforged seeing you mentioned this in a shorter version in another thread I figured I should reply to you here as well.

      replyreport
      1. sunforged profile image76
        sunforgedposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Well, thats pretty much what I would say - the bible has nothing to do with Christianity as it is seen and practiced in these times

        Proof of early editing, the issues created by translations, the council of trent, etc. none of these events have any relation to modern christianity, none at all.

        when the only source evidenced in a conversation is "the bible", queries meant to divine the debaters knowledge of that source , also have no purpose.

        I think the advent of TVs and Credit card processing has had the most effect on Christianity, that Bible thing - just old news - reading and study is for the unenlightened, once you believe in the lord, everything you say is right because JC's got your back
        Modern christianity has no relevance to ancient christianity

        replyreport
  16. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 16 years ago

    "Looks like I killed it, sorry" Whats that mean?

    replyreport
  17. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 16 years ago

    My post re- origins, still has not been answered.
    Mark keeps harping on creation being "magic". It takes NO MORE magic for an (intelligent all powerful being we call) God to create something from nothing, (not that it was nothing), than it does for NOTHING, to somehow (become) something!
    Who's kidding who?
    Not only did matter come into existance from (?) whatever, non-matter, BUT, at the same time(now there's another property) all the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, quantum mechanics...etc. but also TIME itself. Ohg don't let me forget, life from dead, inanimate matter.
    Wow!!! Who's talking magic?
    But, for sake of courtesy, please admit that, I don't know, and NEITHER do you know!
    I take my position by "believing" one explanation, and you, the other! I can live with that level of HONESTY. smile

    replyreport
    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      akadj

      I do not know how life arose on earth. I have said this many times.

      There are several theories as to how this happened.

      The theory of evolution is not one of them. Please read this thread for a full explanation of the theory of evolution.

      Ignorance is not an excuse

      I know you already have all the answers. And I know that you have not read this thread because you already know what it says. lol

      But at least you admit that the idea of spontaneous life is no less plausible than a god picking up a handful of dust and breathing life into it......

      You have just decided to believe it. Even though you admit there is a 50/50 chance of it being wrong. If I add some more theories for you to peruse, will that drop your percentage down?

      I have decided NOT to believe it. In part, at least, because of the behavior this theory induces in people such as yourself.

      Thank you for opening my eyes to other possibilities.

      replyreport
      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Just to clarify one point, I do not "have all the answers".
        What I do have are answers that I have chosen to believe. They are on the side of "God creating everything". You (all) chose to believe evolution (and/or) whatever else theory/explanation you have been taught.
        If there is any end result that I aim for in these posts it would be this,
        That you (any or all ) of you simply acknowledge, perhaps with respect, that this is a plausible alternative! No ridicule, no condemnation, just (tolerance?).
        Perhaps that is asking for too much, I don't know.

        replyreport
        1. Mark Knowles profile image58
          Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          What are you not understanding here?

          Did you even read what I wrote?

          How can I respect your beliefs, when you cannot even be bothered to take a small amount of time to find out what the theory of evolution says before attacking it?

          A plausible alternative at least requires some sort of rational basis. A talking snake and a woman made from a man's rib just don't cut it as plausible. This is the definition of the word plausible:

             1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
             2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
             3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking:

          And even your talking snake does not make the grade. lol

          You have consistently displayed a complete intolerance of any other idea. You have attacked it and accused me of "believing" something because there is a wealth of evidence as opposed to a fairy tale. Why do you expect tolerance for this behavior?

          No ridicule and condemnation?

          You laugh at the idea of evolution and mis-quote what it says, and tell me I am going to burn in hell for all eternity because I do not subscribe to your beliefs.

          lol

          Sounds a lot like ridicule and condemnation to me.

          replyreport
          1. aka-dj profile image79
            aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            You are still TOO FAR down the track!
            My point has been ( for along time now) about ORIGINS.
            Let's get that clear. IF(?) God created all things, evolution is out the window!!!
            If the Big Bang, or whatever other "natural" event caused it all, your popint may be valid.
            HOWEVER, neither one of us, (nor others) can "prove" their point of view.
            Therefore my version is EQUALLY valid, as yours.
            smile smile

            replyreport
            1. Mark Knowles profile image58
              Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              aka-dj -

              Still wondering what your point is. I do not understand the big bang theory and have no idea whether it is valid or not.

              If you took the trouble to read what the theory of evolution says, you will discover it does not attempt to deal with the VERY BEGINNING.

              Evolution is a valid, proven scientific theory as to how we and all the other living creatures on the planet evolved to the condition we are in today. How life as we understand it BEGAN is an entirely different question and there are a number of theories about this, none of which have yet been proven, although even if they are proven, I suspect you will think this is a lie lol

              God created the slime from which life eventually crawled out of? Is that what you are saying?

              What are you not getting? I said I do not know how life began. Darwin did not know how life began, and never said he did. I am reasonably certain it was not a magical super-being, and I am 100% certain you do not know,but apart from that I am happy to wait until such times as some sort of proof becomes clear.

              I have evidence for the theory of evolution. Tangible, measurable proof. Along with evidence of all manner of other things that fit in with the theory of evolution. I have attempted to share some of this with you and you have dismissed it as lies or chosen not to read it.

              What evidence do you have that god created us?

              And I am sorry, meditating on the scriptures does not count as evidence......

              Which makes your theory rather less valid than mine.

              replyreport
  18. sunforged profile image76
    sunforgedposted 16 years ago

    I can live with that - I dont even necessarily disagree - but biblical scholars simply do not agree on the length of a day as you stated

    Debate and discussion is the best way to expose each other to new viewpoints

    replyreport
    1. aka-dj profile image79
      aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you. It's nice to find someone who (plays) by some reasonable roules. It's a thinking man's(person's) topic, worthy of discussion. smile

      replyreport
      1. sunforged profile image76
        sunforgedposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        I am interested,were you aware that Genesis had multiple accounts of creation within it?

        How does such a FACT influence your thoughts on the infallibilty of the written word.

        Is a day CERTAINLY 24 hours (modern conception) and not possibly a translation relating to the beginning and end of an event?

        I understand what i posted, did you?, the info is boring but considering its importance to your entire worldview (it means little to me, just another creation account written by primitive man) , I argued with you within your own accepted framework of truth, Dont you have more of a response.

        have you learned anything?Are you more open to disparaging views?, as your own are not quite as accepted as you wished?

        Faith and ones relationship with a GOD are sacred,but if their origins are based in ignorance, shouldnt one be worried?

        Whatever creative force binds us, however you want to verbalize it and worship such --you MUST understand that the historic purpose of organized religion has been to subjugate and control the masses by explaining a MAGIC poorly and then bending all to its logic.

        Stand Up and be FREE

        replyreport
  19. Shadesbreath profile image76
    Shadesbreathposted 16 years ago

    Sunforged, you idiot, why do you try to complicate things when a simple belief is so much simpler.  You silly man with all your reading and studying the great wisdoms recorded by all of humanity around the world, you are such a dope.  Listen, stop doing all this thinking and reasoning and observing.  There is a simple answer right there in front of your face.  Yes, it's totally irrational, absurd and defies every last law of physics and chemistry and geology and all kinds of stuff, but, it only defies those laws because you keep trying to USE those complicated laws to figure stuff out.  Look man, magic is so much easier to grasp and it explains everything.  Your stupid science only explains tons of stuff, but there's still stuff that your satan science hasn't figured out, especially the questions that its discoveries opens up.  Obviously since you haven't answered every question, your science is a sham... especially since I know that magical beings did all this a long time ago and everyone back in the day knew magic worked too.  Stop being such a patsy, Sunforged, and just accept reality.

    replyreport
    1. sunforged profile image76
      sunforgedposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      C,mon man,

      If you point out all my mistakes how willI I possibly convert this man to my satanist darwinist worldview and earn my affiliate links towards heaven! There are 99 virgins waiting for me in heaven and although in abouth 20 minutes their virginal numbers would be decimated and I would have nothing but whores for eternity...its worth the conversion.

      This is my conversion, dont heaven block!

      replyreport
  20. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 16 years ago

    D'oh! What was I thinking? Of course you are all so smart,and I'm so (dumb).
    Where have you been all my life? Maybe you (all) can really set me staright.
    I can HARDLY wait. lol
    Oh, and (we) christians are accused of being intolerant, and unloving etc.

    replyreport
  21. Mark Knowles profile image58
    Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago

    Mike - now you are confusing me with facts. It is a well known fact that Jesus was made by stealing the myth of Mithras from the Persians. Oddly similar story don't you think?

    And now you expect me to believe that the days of the week were not invented until Christianity came along?

    But, "I have heard," that the days of the week in the bible, are not really days as we know them and some christians believe they were less that 24 hours.....

    I heard it from some christian friends big_smile

    I have also heard that your boss, the pope, has caved on the whole young earth, dinosaurs were on the ark and evolution is the work of the devil story.

    And I had further heard that the pope is the vicar of christ on earth and you were supposed to believe what he told you to believe?

    replyreport
    1. Make Money profile image68
      Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      Why is it that I read the word myth before Mithra. lol

      Who said the "days of the week were not invented until Christianity came along"?  Only you Mark.  Refer to my previous post.

      The Pope is not my boss, Jesus is.  The infallibility part just refers to the dogma of the faith.  If the Pope claims something that is contrary to the dogma of the faith then I have no obligation to believe it.  I don't think evolution comes into play here.  I just choose not to believe evolution because it's crap.  lol

      replyreport
      1. Mark Knowles profile image58
        Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        lol

        OK Mike. Lucid and logical as always........

        replyreport
  22. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 16 years ago

    Mark. I have a (personal) question.
    What do you know about the Bible, Christianity etc? What's your history? I recall reading something you wrote about (being compelled) to study thology(?). Correct me if I'm wrong.
    The reason I ask is that you seem to ask (knowledgable) questions, quote "scriptures" etc.
    I get the impression that you've "been there and done that", but chose your current path.
    PS.Obviously, you don't needto answer if you don't want to. smile

    replyreport
    1. Mark Knowles profile image58
      Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

      I have no problem answering a (personal) question. smile

      Potted history:

      Several years in English Church boarding school
      Church services every morning
      2, 2-hour theology lessons every week, plus homework

      My Grandfather was a senior verger with the Church of England (High Church) in London, responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of many major churches.  Hardcore. He and my Grandmother converted to Catholicism when the CofE started accepting female priests lol

      In fact, it was my Grandfather who first started me asking questions when he decided to show me his church's treasures. The jeweled vestments, bishop's robes etc, with solid gold thread throughout. He was very proud of these things. And I didn't understand why he was so proud of them. He was also in the Army and every time I visit he asks me to visit his local church where the Regiment's colours are hung.

      Don't get me wrong, they are beautiful things. Every church in England has these "treasures" locked away in the basement. Vast amounts of wealth secreted away through collections for the poor.......

      So, I guess you could say I have "been there, done that," and have chosen my current path - Yes.

      What makes you ask?

      replyreport
      1. aka-dj profile image79
        aka-djposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you for that (candid) answer.
        Reason I ask, is that I don't want to see you (merely) as a collection of forum posts, be it contentious, argumentative , provocative or passive. (or any combination therof). I wanted to get a better frame of refference about whom I am communicating with. (A better understanding of the man behind the posts, if you like.)

        replyreport
      2. daeemomin profile image59
        daeemominposted 16 years agoin reply to this

        You saw one religion. came to a conclusion and generalized it to all religions.

        replyreport
        1. mohitmisra profile image61
          mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

          But that one religion has also not been understood properly.

          replyreport
          1. Mark Knowles profile image58
            Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

            lol

            I understand it just fine mo smile

            It is you with the understanding issue.

            Several practicing christians have told you that you will be burning in hell and there is only ONE god. Theirs. What do you not understand about that simple idea?

            As for the muslim - He is too rude to answer a simple question.

            replyreport
            1. mohitmisra profile image61
              mohitmisraposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              We are having a debate and have mutual respect and love between us :)We do agree on certain things.Obviously they are wong in saying I will burn in hell and their is one God- ours.
              I have said before I went beyond without believing in Jesus or any of the Prophets.

              replyreport
            2. daeemomin profile image59
              daeemominposted 16 years agoin reply to this

              I am quite busy. Tomorrow you will get the answer for your question.
              You didn’t answer my first question.
              Here is my point remains. You saw one religion. Came to a conclusion and generalized it to all religions. Isn’t it correct? I want your answer in Yes or No.

              replyreport
              1. Mark Knowles profile image58
                Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this

                I have no intention of answering any more of your questions until you answer mine.

                If you can.

                replyreport
jump to first post
 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

 Necessary
 Features
 Marketing
 Statistics

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)