Adel

Yes I have written acedmic papers...I just finished writing a number of them. As someone who has written academic papers I know that it is considered plagarism to take others people work and call it your own. My profs also consider it plagarism if almost all my paper is taken from another source, even if I quote it and give credit. Because it is not my paper, it is still someone else's. The vast majority of the work should be your own. In your case it is not.... http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html First half of your post on evolution is lifted from the link above http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_03.html http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_species_04.html Second half of your post has arrived almost entirely from there ----------------------------------------- Link wars are pointless and are not educational, anyone can post a link, with a bit of training my dog could post a link on mapleleaf web. But it contravenes the rules of Mapleleaf web. This isn't about backing your post up with references...although darwin refuted is not a scientific or academic source....this is about lifting your post...two different things. I am more than willing to debate you... I am not willing however, to debate endless quotes and articles you lift off the internet for me, simply because I have a bloody life... Thanks for your reply... I have never gone to that website... I have lots of references and PDF books on the matter and on many many things else... I have not called the quotes my own. I mentioned the references and page numbers… If you are not able to prove your point scientifically and you want to talk and talk and talk, then leave debating to other people who are serious and respect their minds… people who respect others even when they do not agree with them… Instead of calling me morally and academically corrupt, and reporting me to the administrators (well, you don’t have to reply if you cannot), read the quotes and give me answers… Well, if you think your ancestor is Chimps, it not mine… You have not given any sold answer to any question… Does Darwin have any evidence on his theory? Does the fossil record give any - I say ANY – evidence of the alleged millions and millions of the transitional forms? Do you have any evidence we came from Chimps? Why the other Chimps have not become Humans? If I sacrificed my mind and agreed with you that we came from Chimps, do not you want us to sacrifice our minds - again- to believe that just because having some different flesh and bones from Chimps, we have the God-like mind, intelligence, love, caring, creativity, souls, personalities, history, ….. etc? The difference between Chimps and humans are too massive that it makes us really closer to believe that whoever believes that really came from Chimps…..

Thanks Slavik44 for your repy… I appreciate it appreciate it… although I did not appreciate some words like ‘dip shit….. some dimwitted moron…’ when describing some people because they do not agree with you … Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Well, the fundamental science that can shed light on the matter is paleontology, the science of the study of fossils. So it is Imperative to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution with fossil discoveries. According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. This transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. So there must have been millions of transitional forms… Am I saying that? No. Listen to Darwin “If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. ” Darwin knew the biggest stumbling-block for his theory… let Darwin continue “…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.” [The Origin of Species, 124-125] He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found. So what does fossil record say? Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries: “ Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.” [Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25.] More? Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record: “When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…” [K. S. Thomson, Morphogenesis and Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press,1988, p. 98.] One more… Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states: “ If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.” [Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Tichnor and Fields, New Haven, 1982, p. 40. ] The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s: “ The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. [s.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.] As of now I am reporting you to the administrators I have no problem participating in a debate on Evolution and I would enjoy doing so with a reasonably informed person. However, what I am doing is using the knowledge I have learned over the years and posting it up for discussion. What you are doing is plagarising other individuals work. I have to invest time into my posts, while all you do is a simple search on google, it is Acedemically lazy and I will not engage in a debate with someone who is so morally and academically corrupt. I am so sorry and surprised to hear that... Sorry because I thought you would be able to debate scientifically and support your opinions with convincing evidences and let us all find the truth… And surprised that you are angry and think I am [morally and academically corrupt] because I support my opinion with scientific quotes… Have you ever done any academic research? Master or doctorate? Do not you know that researchers support their opinions from whatever scientific references available and they are applauded for that? Do you expect everyone to have his own laboratory and go and investigate himself/herself? Are you telling me that your opinions you post are from your own experiments and research? I would completely understand you if I did not mention the references I quote from…. I am not searching Google and copy and past… I think however I want to do my research should not make you angry and say I am corrupt…

Thanks Slavik44 for your repy… I appreciate it appreciate it… although I did not appreciate some words like ‘dip shit….. some dimwitted moron…’ when describing some people because they do not agree with you … Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. Mutation is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states: “ First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, here would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.” [b. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust. 1988.] More? The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War: “ Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good affect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? [Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June page1159] Well, the fundamental science that can shed light on the matter is paleontology, the science of the study of fossils. So it is Imperative to compare the hypotheses of the theory of evolution with fossil discoveries. According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. This transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years. If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. So there must have been millions of transitional forms… Am I saying that? No. Listen to Darwin “If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed... Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains. ” Darwin knew the biggest stumbling-block for his theory… let Darwin continue “…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.” [The Origin of Species, 124-125] He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found. So what does fossil record say? Robert Carroll, an expert on vertebrate paleontology and a committed evolutionist, comes to admit that the Darwinist hope has not been satisfied with fossil discoveries: “ Despite more than a hundred years of intense collecting efforts since the time of Darwin's death, the fossil record still does not yield the picture of infinitely numerous transitional links that he expected.” [Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 25.] More? Another evolutionary paleontologist, K. S. Thomson, tells us that new groups of organisms appear very abruptly in the fossil record: “When a major group of organisms arises and first appears in the record, it seems to come fully equipped with a suite of new characters not seen in related, putatively ancestral groups. These radical changes in morphology and function appear to arise very quickly…” [K. S. Thomson, Morphogenesis and Evolution, Oxford, Oxford University Press,1988, p. 98.] One more… Biologist Francis Hitching, in his book The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, states: “ If we find fossils, and if Darwin's theory was right, we can predict what the rock should contain; finely graduated fossils leading from one group of creatures to another group of creatures at a higher level of complexity. The 'minor improvements' in successive generations should be as readily preserved as the species themselves. But this is hardly ever the case. In fact, the opposite holds true, as Darwin himself complained; "innumerable transitional forms must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" Darwin felt though that the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record was simply a matter of digging up more fossils. But as more and more fossils were dug up, it was found that almost all of them, without exception, were very close to current living animals.” [Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Tichnor and Fields, New Haven, 1982, p. 40. ] The fossil record reveals that species emerged suddenly, and with totally different structures, and remained exactly the same over the longest geological periods. Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard University paleontologist and well-known evolutionist, admitted this fact first in the late 70s: “ The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless; 2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'. [s.J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 86, May 1977.]

Again, which specific holy books are you talking about/quoting from? How convenient. So why are you asking us to think in the first place? So are you saying that good people are never killed? I suspect many good people, whose families needed them badly, have still been slaughtered around the world. Of course, you've stipulated "for these reasons or others", which is an easy way out of any argument. OK, so lets get this straight. Your basic premise is that God is infinitely wise, and nothing happens that God doesn't want to happen. God, in his infinite wisdom, creates cancer. He arbitrarily decides who gets cancer, and then to cure some and not others, based on whether or not someone has asked him to; the ultimate power trip. But wait, others ask to be cured and are not, and others don't ask, and are cured. It sounds like your God is all powerful yet only uses that power when it suits him, for reasons unknown, and we are all at his mercy. Any free choice we make is subject to his will, and we will be judged and punished if we don't do what he wants. I don't like your God very much at all. It is because you do not know Him that you do not like Him… I might have not been able to explain correctly… I understand you… However, before jumping and saying you do not like Him you should have asked yourself if He does like your actions… Everyday He gives it to you is a blessing for which you should thank Him, but you never do… He created you and you worship something or someone else (maybe yourself) … He gives you many things every second and you do not seem grateful… He keeps the sun shining, the mother Earth generous and has never heard ‘Thanks God’ … Although it is not a good analogy, if you have a son and you take care of him very well… You protect him but he always hurt himself… you give him guides to deal with the world – you know well - around him, but he never listens…you do whatever you can to him but he never thanks you…… probably you will not like his actions that well…

There isn't one. It was always there and always will be there. It's your linear approach to time that makes this concept difficult to understand. Once again, there wasn't a first, just as there won't be a last. I have not really got any scientific answers…. It is a fact now the universe has a beginning… again and again and again… concepts like time, place, up, down, start, end …etc have been introduced when the universe was created…. No universe, no time, no place… To limit the discussion a little bit….. Does diversity within a species - variation or microevolution, whatever you want to call - has anything to do with Evolution? In another way: Can “microevolution” lead to “macroevolution”? The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. However, variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about "evolution." Giving variations the name of "microevolution" is actually an ideological preference on the part of evolutionary biologists. The impression that evolutionary biologists have given by using the term "microevolution" is the false logic that over time variations can form brand new classes of living things. I think many people who are not already well-informed on the subject come away with the superficial idea that "as it spreads, microevolution can turn into macroevolution." The evolutionary biologists S.F. Gilbert, J.M. Opitz, and R.A. Raff explained the matter this way: “…Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest” [Developmental Biology, 173, Article no. 0032, 1996, p. 361] Another revolutionist gives us the answer… The noted author and science expert Roger Lewin describes the result of a four-day symposium held in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, in which 150 evolutionists participated: “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. …The answer can be given as a clear, No” [R. Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire", Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883.] Please keep in mind this has nothing to do at all with Darwin. Darwin, as a scientist who tried his best to bring about answers to the big questions in life, is really appreciated… However, whether his theory or the so-called neo-Darwinism is true is a completely different matter…

Does this quote look familiar? It is from... http://www.evidencesofcreation.com/tellme09.htm And this bit... fromhttp://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:LxUaeM...clnk&cd=1&gl=ca (don't know if this link will work, but you get the idea. ) Plaigiarism is against forum rules. Thanes theloniusfleabag for your reply …. I appreciate your efforts… When talking about scientific matters, all people - including scientists – quote from their or other’s books and references to support their opinions… However, I have not quoted from the mentioned websites or any other website. I am quoting from scientific references I have and for most of the quotes I mentioned, I specified the reference name and even the page number… Probably those websites quoted from the same references… But I think this is not the point here… The point is that there are no scientific bases whatsoever to support Evolution… Did Darwin or any evolutionist have any scientific proof to support their claims? Does natural selection produce new species, new genetic information, or new organs? It does not. Even Darwin accepted this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.” [The Origin of Species. P127]

I think he was referring to maggots growing spontaneously from meat, not speculating on issues of molecular biology that were far beyond the scope of information he had available during his lifetime. -k 1- It is Lamarck and Darwin who developed their theories based on the believes that maggots growing spontaneously from meat and mice sprang naturally from wheat. Louis Pasteur – who died in 1895, 39 years after Darwin published his book - is regarded as one of the three main founders of bacteriology, among Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. His findings were completely against Darwin’s theory.. 2- In Darwin's time, nothing was known about the extraordinary structure of the cell. Under the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell seemed to be a murky lump. For this reason, both Darwin and other evolutionists of his time believed that a cell was a simple driblet of water that could easily originate by chance. Since discoveries central to our understanding of biochemistry, such as DNA, the Krebs cycle, and protein synthesis, were not made until a half century after Pasteur's death, it is somewhat foolish to attempt to portray Pasteur as a final authority on the subject, however groundbreaking his work might have been at the time. There is a lot of debate on the subject of whether self-replicating molecules could have been created by chance, and you can rest assured that the phrase "Pasteur says they can't" is of absolutely zero significance in that debate. And while the broader sense of evolution remains controversial, the narrower sense-- natural selection (which is what people generally mean when they use the term "Darwinism") has been observed first-hand and is regarded as a fact even by most creationists. One example is that prior to industrial revolution, a species of moth that lived in London was light grey in colour. The arrival of the industrial revolution turned the trees and stonework in London to a dark grey. Within a decade, there were no light grey moths left... but a lot of dark grey moths. Why? Lighter coloured moths of that species were easy prey, and darker coloured moths had a much better chance of surviving long enough to have offspring. Another example of more current interest is bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics. As antibiotics become widely used, bacteria that are vulnerable to them have shorter lifespans and therefore have fewer descendants, while bacteria that are more resistant to antibiotics have longer lifespans and therefore produce more descendants. Withing some number of generations, statistically it becomes most likely that bacteria you encounter are descended from stock that has hereditary resistance to antibiotics. That's Darwinism, and it's an observable fact. If you wish to discuss macroevolution, go ahead, but leave Darwin out of it. Darwin's principles have been proven to be solid. -k Intestesting poitns.... The same "Moths of the Industrial Revolution" in 18th century example.... Well, This is not an example of "evolution", because natural selection did not give rise to a species that did not exist in nature earlier. Dark-coloured moths were already extant before the industrial revolution. There is only a shift in the number of existing moth species. Moths did not acquire a new organ or feature to lead to a "change in their species". A noted evolutionist, British paleontologist Colin Patterson confesses this fact: "No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question. " Mutations are genetic accidents that occur in living things. Like all accidents, they cause harm and destruction. "Evolution" through mutation is as unlikely as the improvement of a clock by a hammer blow.

Not at all... "Darwin's principles have been proven to be solid" is not sound.. The famous zoologist Pierre Grassé, the former president of the French Academy of Sciences, makes his point about the logic of "chance", which is the backbone of Darwinism: "The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur… There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it " Grassé summarises what the concept of "coincidence" means for evolutionists: "...Chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped." This is the type of superstition that underlies Darwinism.

Evolution is not likely right.... Today, it is established that the cell, which has such a complex design, could not possibly originate by chance as the theory of evolution claims. It is certain that a structure too complex to be imitated even by man cannot be the work of "chance". Renowned British mathematician and astronomer Professor Fred Hoyle - died August 2001 - puts this impossibility like this: " The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein". ["Hoyle on Evolution",p105] And in another commentary, Hoyle says: "Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." [Evolution from Space,p130]

I think he was referring to maggots growing spontaneously from meat, not speculating on issues of molecular biology that were far beyond the scope of information he had available during his lifetime. -k 1- It is Lamarck and Darwin who developed their theories based on the believes that maggots growing spontaneously from meat and mice sprang naturally from wheat. Louis Pasteur – who died in 1895, 39 years after Darwin published his book - is regarded as one of the three main founders of bacteriology, among Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch. His findings were completely against Darwin’s theory.. 2- In Darwin's time, nothing was known about the extraordinary structure of the cell. Under the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell seemed to be a murky lump. For this reason, both Darwin and other evolutionists of his time believed that a cell was a simple driblet of water that could easily originate by chance.

Thanks for your reply...although I cannot consider as any answer to my questions... Saying that I don't agree at all that 'a large proportion of scientists believe in evolution'. It is the opposite... The French biologist Louis Pasteur put an end to this belief. As he put it: "The claim that inanimate matter can originate life is buried in history for good."

In my previous post ‘Is it up to us to believe in God?’ I said that logically saying that there must be a mighty creator for this universe is much closer to logic than claiming that everything randomly came out of nothing. Many replies to the post rejected that and almost all of them rested on the Darwinism… “But just to let you know, Darwin figured it out” replied my friend guyser and advised me to take my own advice ‘Please think...’ So the base on which replies depended is the Darwinism. All of them considered it as a fact…So let is see if it is a solid fact or just a refuted myth… So for my ‘logical’ and ‘scientific’ friends I want them to give my “logical and scientific” answers to some very basic questions: 1- Did Darwin base his claims on any concrete evidence or finding, or just made some observations and produced some ideas while on board H.M.S Beagle ship based on some primitive understanding of science? 2- What is the origin of life? 3- How did the first protein originate? I think since Darwin publish his book “The Origin of Species” in 1856, you guys must have had enough time to think and prove your claim….

That makes sense. That is not subservience. People can quit their jobs. No they cannot. Not if they want to live an acceptable life anyway. Economic servitude is quite brutal. Now you are suggesting that religion is necessary...?? I'm merely saying that religion is a necessary evil (hence the necessary part) that should be fought against and abolished as soon as it is possible to do so with little reprecussions for society. I cannot help being surprised that we are being distracted from the main question whether we have the luxury to believe there is a creator of the universe … Scientifically speaking, no-one yet has any strong point that this universe does not have a creator… The opinions I have seen are: 1- Over millions of years, the un-living materials – no-one even told us from where they came – shaped themselves blindly into this unique universe. Furthermore, they created life on this earth. 2- Seeing living cells and organs in action, then they have their own logic and they created themselves, work by themselves. So why do we need a creator? 3- If everything needs a creator, so why we exclude God from that? Apart from the third point, I am surprised we consider some un-living materials understand it all; away more that we do, and shaped this amazing universe and created us… If any one told me that the most perfect and complicated computer or any high-tech tool was created blindly by some materials, I found it much to accept - although I will have to sacrifice my mind though – than saying I, or the intelligent people arguing me here were made by them… Ask any scientist in any field about the perfect design and logic in this universe and he/she will tell you that ages and ages are needed just to give a general idea about what we know so far. They will tell you that the more they know the more they realize that there a lot more to learn. The scientist will tell - modestly - you they are LEARNING about the universe and LEARNING from the universe. Many many wonderful inventions came into existence by merely mimicking some creatures in this universe… And guess what, I am being told this universe were created by itself blindly..try/error..!!! and they take the driver’s seat and advise people to talk “logically” Now to the third point. Who created the creator Himself? If we gave a mind to a car and ask it how it would picture its maker, it would tell you that he (more accurately – from its point of view - it) must have a motor, steering wheel, brakes, wheels….etc. Why? Because it compares the maker to itself which is wrong… As I mentioned before, the creator is above time and place. He is not a being of anyway we could imagine. He is much greater than we might think. Concepts like life and death are created the same like universe when living being were created. Existence is the rule not non-existence. One more example to clarify Our souls are from outside this created universe. Death does not apply to them. Death is just a separation between our bodies and our souls. Anyone can easily tell that. Anyone will feel time does not affect his soul. It is above time. A man or a women aged 10, 20, 50, 80 would feel no time passed and if the body helps, he/she will live forever …

The holy book written by less than holy people. Had we lived by the holy book we would still treat women like they do in Afghanistan and keep slaves around. The holy book was a guideline to live by 2000 years ago. We're beyond that now. I think we all agree that if we want to know about some religion, we take it from the source of it, not from people’s behaviors.. If I want to understand physics, I don’t go and watch physics’ professor or teacher’s everyday behavior… this is not the right way… Looking at how Christians did to their opponents all over the history – for example – does not necessarily reflect the truth of Christianity… Same applies to Muslims and Jews…etc For the creator, men and women are the same. He just chose to create them this way for life continuity… Looking at how women were – or have being - treated in that country or another and saying religion says that is the same as seeing a criminal killing innocent people and claiming that law says that… Look at what religion says about women… - “Who ever does good deeds – man or women – will be rewarded…” no difference - A prophet was asked “Who is the one person with whom I must behave best?” The prophet said “Your mother”. The man asked again “Then who else?” The prophet said “then your mother”. The man asked again “Then who else?” The prophet said “then your you mother”. The man asked again “Then who else?”. The prophet said “then your father.” Religion asks people to take care of their mothers 3 times than their fathers. This is of-course you are dealing with your fathers very very well… - “All people – men and women- are equals as a comb’s teeth… ” There are a lot spread in the holy books

You haven't cut out the middleman. You've just changed the name. Instead of calling it the Creator/God, you now call it the Universe.A rose by any other name... Look, the problem with religious people is not that they believe in God. The problem is that they believe some humans have had contact with God and hence have some kind of inside knowledge. You can have faith in God but it's quite another thing to have faith in some guy who claims to have spoken to God. When someone (Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, the Pope) goes around telling me what to do, I call that politics not religion. I don't care whether he claims to be inspired by God - in fact, such inspiration is reason to be doubtful. I disagree with Kurt Vonnegut on many things but I think he got this right: Take care of the people and let God Almighty take care of Himself. That is a very valid question...Anyone could come up and pretended he was a prophet... and actually this happened.... Through history, these are the characteristics of true prophets : etc. Adel, that's interesting. You admit that a charlatan could claim to be a prophet and then you suggest ways to know whether someone is a true prophet or a charlatan.You are employing the scientific method (rather badly) to decide. I applaud your efforts and suggest you carry them to their logical conclusion. If you do, you will realize that this God that impresses you so is far more wonderful and complex than any so-called prophet has ever understood. IMV, Mohammed (and Jesus Christ) were just politicians. End of story. (Admittedly, others view them differently but to me, that's a political issue.) Melanie, replace the word 'Universe' with the word 'God' and your questions and quotes will make more sense. Prayer. I have always figured that prayer means talking to one's self. Inside all of us, there is a constant conversation. For some, this is called prayer. The basis of good mental health (I think June Callwood used to write about this) is that this internal conversation is a pleasant and enjoyable conversation. The way you talk about prophets imply having very incorrect picture about them. Prophets were the best people ever – every one at his time…. Far from being interested in life enjoyment, money, authority, luxury life they were. They spent there whole lives guiding their people in wise dialogues while most of them only had been told they were lairs, been tortured, deported.. All of the prophets said that they did not ask for any rewards from people, their rewards were promised from the one He had sent them. After sending messengers to people, on the Judgment Day, no-one will ever have any excuse about not knowing about the God and His orders… All I am saying here is from the holy book… not faking anything…

How can you be oblivious to the nonsensical quality of that statement? How can it be an honour when it was unearned and could not be appreciated? Why say 'in return' when there was no consultation or agreement? But then why go thru the sadistic exercise of letting him get in trouble in the first place? Thanks for your reply… The God is not that bad… He created us in a very good shape, gave us everything we need, prepared the earth for us, gave us minds to think and invent, protect us from outer space, sent us many may prophets who suffered enough just to guide people and delivered the messages… Love, mercy, intelligence, caring, understanding…etc are from Him not created from some stones and gases under high intensity of heat!!!! It is amazing how dare we are when talking about the creator of the whole universe. This might be because we do not know Him well. Maybe this is some of the meanings of one verse in one of the creator’s holy books. He said “Only scientists are those who fear God most….” There is a big difference between braveness and ignorance. If someone never experience touching a bare electric wire and he never knew anything about electricity, he will not hesitate touching it. No-one will call that braveness. … The more you know about the creator of this universe, the more you know how mighty He is, how merciful He is… Probably when we stop playing the role of the universe masters and think of ourselves as creatures, then we will think more rationally…

You are not making any sense, Adel. You say he is the only one who can allow or disallow anything to happen, but still maintain that he doesn't prevent free choice. This needs a much better explanation than what you have given. Also you talk about prayer, as if it makes a difference to pray about anything. You have just said that he will do what he chooses - is he really swayed by people asking him to do things? If he has such complete wisdom, prayer is meaningless because he already knows what he will do regardless of what anyone asks. And I find it offensive to think that, if he had such wisdom and power to prevent suffering, he would only act if asked to do so. Perhaps you should clarify which holy books you keep referring to? Good point… When I said “the only one who can allow or disallow anything to happen”, I meant no-one at all can do anything if He does not permit that… But the missing point here is that He had already decided to leave complete choice to human beings to think and commit actions. It is because He allowed them to do that not because they have the genuine ability to do that… The creator created the whole universe having no options but to follow His orders. He just made the exception to mankind examine their behavior and actions. The living creatures are two categories: 1- Having choice living beings (mankind...) – will be judged… 2- Not having choice and will not be judged (Angles – plants – animals…etc) The creator decided to honor some creatures and give them the mind and full choice and in return they will be responsible for their choices and good or bad deeds... As for prayers, of course the creator knows what he does and will do because he is above time and place… Past, present, and future are the same for Him. The creator is the most merciful for his creatures as He created them. Actually all the mercy we have and mothers have towards their kids is just a small fraction of His mercy towards His creatures… When one of His creatures is in trouble and calls Him sincerely, He answers his/her prayers…

Why not? Why does "The creator" not always get it right, i.e deformities. After all, such anomalies are accounted for in genetics. Life is a big dice game. I can safely assume that the biggest obstacle from thinking clearly is: Habits 1- When you get used to something long enough (thousands or millions of years for mankind), people assume this is the only way things must be. Anything else is does not make sense. 2- Just because living cells are “living”, people really get into thee illusion that those cells DO think and judge and modify and plan… by themselves. 3- Analogy 1: If every human being finds a letter in his/her mailbox everyday since birth until death, almost all people will consider this normal and ‘logical’. We do not need to assume that SOMEONE sends or delivers those letters…Do you say ‘No’’...then ask yourself who created food for living beings ready for them? 4- Analogy 2: If you ordered food and someone delivered it not covered or had dirt, you get angry “How can I eat food like that”. But having fruit created with wonderful peels or skins, we people – habits’ salves – say “Oh that is normal. Fruit knew that by itself and skinned banana – for example – so neatly that living beings can eat it!!!! ” We need to get out of our habits and start asking ourselves about the things we take for granted and fully ignore the ONE who created them…

What about all those times he doesn't interfere? Why does he allow some evil acts to occur, but prevents others? How do you know? But you say he will sometimes interfere. Mighty arbitrary, your god is. By the way: Simply restating that God has always existed doesn't resolve that contradiction. There is a very big topic in religion called ‘Prayers’ . So whether prayer is just one asks the God for something or it does include physical movements while praying, people ask God for many things… He is the ONLY one who can allow or disallow any thing to happen…. In one of the holy book you can read “Oh Man, if all people, from the first one to the last one on this earth gathered together to do something for you, they would not be able to do that if I don’t allow it. And if you gathered together to prevent something that I have allowed they would be able to do that”… If there is sick person that doctors said no known medicine is there for him. And he or any one - his mother for example – asked the God to cure him and God accepted her prayer, he would interfere and cure him. I am sure you heard about many incidents like that that some people were cured without any apparent reason after all doctors determined he would never recover… Again this is due to His wisdom and does not prevent people from having free choice

Another contradiction. It seems, acording to you, god manipulates events so as to pre-empt free choice. He's a puppet master. Thus, we must assume that evil actions-let's say, the Holocaust- are part of God's plan. Which doesn't make him look like a particularly nice god. I said the Creator sometimes interfere for the good of all including people who have bad intentions. He never interferes to prevent good deeds… I imagine a person is being planned to be killed and he is a good person. His parents and his family need him badly. For these reasons or others, God does not want him being killed. Then He interferes, which is good for all people including the one who planned to kill that persons… But these are very rare situations and if God did not mention them in the holy books we would not even know about them. Other situations people are given complete freedom to do whatever they want and they will hold responsibility for their actions… Holocaust or other tragedies are people’s actions and people involved are responsible. There is a big difference between whether God LIKES or ALLOWS bad deeds. The general role is that God allows almost everything to happen to give everyone complete and free choice. But this does not necessarily mean that He likes that. It is clear that He said in his holy books that He hates those actions and - unless they regret- people who committed that will be punished… One more point, here we are not taking about some people’s God. We are talking about The God. The ONLY creator to this world…

The creator does NOT interfere - usually - in human actions. If he did, one’s responsibility would be only on his intentions and what actions he has already taken. For example, if a person decides to rob a bank, and God – for a specific wisdom - does not want this to happen, He would interfere - in His ways – to prevent that… What I mean by “in His ways” is that it could be many ways. Examples: suddenly that person becomes sick without any reason, or he receives an unexpected call about his family, or a sudden renovations would happen at the bank that night, or while being drunk, he mentioned that and someone told the police, or ….etc … People – who do not see the whole picture – would see any scenario of those as natural and by chance. But people who know the wisdom of the creator – scattered through his universe - will not…. Now going back to that robber, he would only be responsible in front of God for his intention to rob the bank but not for a robbery. I am not faking that out. This is very well-known for believers and was stated clearly in the holy books. On the other hand if a person indented to do a good thing and could not – for any reason – make it, his reward will be - not just for his good intention – as if he really did it completely. This is to encourage human being to commit good deeds…

I think we are driving a logical discussion.. but I feel that you sometimes ignore my big questions and do not answer them... If the universe has a beginning, who created it? We all admit nothing comes from nothing. Just to confront your thinking on the matter Adel, if a rock falls down a mountain, did someone or something have to push it? If your answer is yes, god pushed it. Your god spends his time pushing rocks down a mountain while in the meantime millions starve, people suffer and children are molested. That is a good point... To be judged fairly you must have the freedom to do whatever you want to do, right or wrong. If you cannot do anything wrong (hurting people, stealing, lying, ..etc) then you don’t have free choice… If God punishes guilty people right away, we would be here now arguing whether He exists. Probably this is the main reason people are arguing and have doubts as the judgment day is not in this life… Having said that, I can explain why people die starving and others are throwing food in garbage cans… It is people’s free behavior that caused that. If someone killed another, the creator does not like that, but he gave everyone free choice and capability to behave… Having a look at the holy books, you can easily see He considered all those actions as big sins and threatened those who committed with severe consequences in life – through law - and on the judgment day. Loot at one of the prophet’s sayings “By God, he does not believe in God who sleeps full and his neighbor sleeps hungry and he knows that.” As for the other point of pushing rocks down a mountain, yes, the creator does that. But not in that simple direct way you think. He does that through the mechanism He created in the universe. Just another thing, the creator can do everything and all things at the same time. There is no time apply to Him. He said that in one of His holy book that He will judge all people at the same time….

Then who created God? If everything requires a creator, then, logically, the creator must have been created. If God does not require a creator, then your premise (everythiong needs a creator) is false. You throw around words like "perfect" and "appropriate." What do they mean? Anyhoo, the process doesn't always result in the ideal forms. But nature has a way of weeding out unsuccessful models and keeping adaptations that are beneficial. It's luck, it's trial and error. This is barely English. We haven't always had our arms, legs, eyes etc. the way we have them now. You're not thinking rationally. You are taking the existence of God on faith. Faith is inherently irrational. As for the rest, I have no idea what your point is. And when the plane crashes, killing all on board, or the cancer spreads and eats away at the person's brain, does he answer? Thanks for your reply... 1- Again The Creator is above time and place. Concepts like life, death, place, time, light, dark ... were created when the universe was created.... 2- For accidents that happen in this world, they happen on purpose even if we do not know why. It might appear as unfair for us, but as long as we do not see the whole picture we are not in a good position to judge.. if you are injecting your kid to save his/her life or cure him/her from a disease , your kid –feeling only the pain – would consider it unfair, while it is not from your point of view. I am sure we have many situations in life we all faced and considered unfair and then when we saw the whole picture we changed our mind… 3- Saying that we did not have our legs, hands… the way we have them now is just an arguable “theory”. Many scientists do not agree with that. You can follow the fetus creation process and see how we were created. Everything where it should be. Do not tell me “NATURE” changes our chromosomes also to create parts of our bodies’ parts the way they are. Nature is just a descriptive concept of our familiar ovservations. It is not living rational being to do any thing. What is nature man? If you put a hundred dollars on your desk and went away for awhile. Now if you came back and did not find it, would you agree with anyone telling you that ‘nature’ took it?.....

If nothing comes from nothing, then God must have come from something. If you say God came from nothing or always existed, I can say the same about the universe. In any case, from a scientific standpoint, the universe did not come from nothing. Big Bang cosmology, for example, states that all matter and engery in the universe was originally contained with a single point of extremely high mass and density. Implausible? No more so than the concept of a sentient and supernatural deity. Define the term "miraculously perfect." Sigh. Our eye don't work all that well at night. They don't give us a very good range of vision. They are soft and vulnerable. In fact, like so many parts of th ehuman body, they are decidedly imperfect. Nor is anyone saying they create dthemselves from nothing (whatever the hell that means). Like I said, there's processes for this stuff. Anyway, why is this anymore illogical than the presumption that god started the process? Like I said, you're just adding an uneccesary step. As far as I know when there is a process, there must be a bigging for that process,a starter fro that process, a logic fro that process, a result for that process… And when we see a perfect process with very meaningful results we must admit SOMEONE started and controlled that process… During that process - you are talking about - there has been endless number of ways that would lead to completely different results… but why this blind unthinking process – as you are claiming – always choose the appropriate way, the appropriate time, the appropriate amount, the appropriate……etc Why we always have our eyes, arms, legs….in place? You would say “Oh, I have told you many times that the cells…..” do you find that logical? It is people’s habit that they don’t think rationally about things they take for granted until they lose it… When they lose their eyes, their legs… when they lack water or food.. when they have a disease that doctors say we cannot do anything about it….when they are in a plane shaking in air…. In those unfamiliar times, I am sure they know which ONE they will call and ask…. You should appreciate you precious (soft and vulnerable!!!!!) eyes man…I am asking the creator keep them safe and keep you happy…

I think it's irnoic that you are citing science here when you entire argument rests on the persumption of a supernatural god. If God is supernatural, it's impossible to have a rational and logical discussion about it. That's faith. I think we are driving a logical discussion.. but I feel that you sometimes ignore my big questions and do not answer them... If the universe has a beginning, who created it? We all admit nothing comes from nothing. If the universe is that miraculously perfect, could it make itself? It is amazing that people when they look at the digital cameras they cannot hide their admiration and they ask who made it and on the other hand they dare to say – and they call it logic and rational debate - our perfect eyes created them selves….