do you believe in god?

[Microbatman]

For most of my life NO
Christians are just dumb stupid people that dont understand science/evolution and belive in a fairy tale book called Bible
and want all your money

Yes after I learned that Darwinism is has some serious flaws. To put it bluntly Darwinism is like the DOS version of life. After I upgraded my education on the subject to go beyond my stupid 5th grade science book that showed monkeys dwarfing into men and really started to understand the subject and all the flaws of Darwinism. Yes flaws. Its nice to see others here recognize this, Lifeforphycis has pointed some out some flaws in earlier post. Sometimes these flaws are so simple its almost funny. Take for example Scientist A sends Sample A fossil to 3 differnet labs to get it "dated" and 3 different dates come back of how old it is. How come this is not in text books or on the news?

Today I understand that life did not evolve from pile of dead trash (which by the way is one of the reasons the hole theory started scientist use to think that trash turned in or should I say evolved into flys) dirt, sand, black hole or whatever other dead thing you think it came from, it became pretty clear that there is a GOD. Life comes from life.

For those of you that would like to take the next step in thier understanding of this subject check out the book or DVD "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells. Its a good start to educating ourself more on the subject.

For those of you that still belive in evolution. My brother grew I mean mutated, gills last week and can swim as long as he wants under water. I know go ahead and through in a million years of tiny changes and mutations bla bla bla. Cats don't give birth to lions. Dogs dont give birth to wolves. Yes animals adapt and the weak ones die and strongest survive. Tell me someting I don't know. But the strongest meanest most adapted monkey does not turn into a man. It stays a monkey thats why we still have monkeyes today. If everything evolvoed why is all the unevolved stuff still around?
What about the circle of live? For the bird to eat the worm that just ate the nat that ate the grass. Does not all that stuff have to be here at the same time.Go ahead and start talking photosynthisis and mutations and millions of years and the first food was sunlight and then came the ameba and then came the frog and then the tat pole. Well if you belive that check out something called the cambrian explosion. This stuff happened suddenely. Rapidly and quickly.
Would love to say more but just wanted to let you know my opinion vote and why I think it.
I could go ahead and quote some bible verses and stuff but that wont work for all you non belivers. Go out and learn more about science. Thats one of the many reasons I belive in god.

 

[Canis Lupus]

For most of my life NO
Christians are just dumb stupid people that dont understand science/evolution and belive in a fairy tale book called Bible
and want all you money

Yes after I learned that Darwinism is has some serious flaws. To put it bluntly Darwinism is like the DOS version of life. After I upgraded my education on the subject to go beyond my stupid 5th grade science book that showed monkeys dwarfing into men and really started to understand the subject and all the flaws and today understand that life did not evolve from pile of dead trash (which by the way is one of the reasons the hole theory started scientist use to think that trash turned in or should I say evolved into flys) dirt, sand, black hole or whatever other dead thing you think it came from, it became pretty clear that there is a GOD. Life comes from life.

For those of you that would like to take the next step in thier understanding of this subject check out the book or DVD "Icons of Evolution" by Jonathan Wells. Its a good start to educating ourself more on the subject.

I am reluctant to state it because the theory of evolution is such an orthodoxy of modern thinking and many who argue against it are ratbags, but the theory is a shabby explanation for what is going on with life here on earth. That said, it's not as if some of its observations are not valid. It just goes nowhere near to explaining what is actually happening. To view it as a sufficient explanation is akin to thinking the game of monopoly represents an economy.

 

[Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh]

How come this is not in text books

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/skbones.htm

 

[Canis Lupus]

http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/skbones.htm

The following in red does not seem to be correct from one of the pages on that site:

"This would give the inhabited earth an age of about 2 billion years. Interestingly enough, the oldest undisputed organisms recognized by paleontologists - algae fossils like those from the Gunflint formation in Canada - are just about that old.** Altogether, 453 yuga cycles have elapsed since this day of Brahma began. Each yuga cycle involves a progression from a golden age of peace and spiritual progress to a final age of violence and spiritual degradation."

I can easily stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that evidence has been discovered of simple organisms on earth exceeding 4 billion years. If one is going to cite science in support, even of something spiritual, one needs to do it correctly.

 

[Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh]

The following in red does not seem to be correct from one of the pages on that site:

"This would give the inhabited earth an age of about 2 billion years. Interestingly enough, the oldest undisputed organisms recognized by paleontologists - algae fossils like those from the Gunflint formation in Canada - are just about that old.** Altogether, 453 yuga cycles have elapsed since this day of Brahma began. Each yuga cycle involves a progression from a golden age of peace and spiritual progress to a final age of violence and spiritual degradation."



I can easily stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that evidence has been discovered of simple organisms on earth exceeding 4 billion years. If one is going to cite science in support, even of something spiritual, one needs to do it correctly.

shud point out that in the first place i did not cite in support that page u (deservedly or not) chose to nitpik & that u don't even have the common netiquette courtesy to provide ur own link in support of ur 'understanding'.
if posting unsupported claims while pouncing on a strawman is ur idea of how to 'do it correctly', then it's fairly obvious ur in no position to set yourself as an authority on correctness.

also if u had checked the copyright located at the bottom of every page u wud see that the info presented was current as of 2003 & should come as no surprise some facts will have become dated.
the evidence u speak of has a) either been discovered after the book was published.
or b) perhaps the new evidence is not completely without dispute & the 2 billion year figure was chosen as the minimum that everyone can agree upon.

it don't really matter tho in any event since a) none of that invalidates what was on the page i actually linked to.
and b) pushing the date further back (of the earliest discovered life forms on earth) is exactly the underlying premise the author is putting forward & only serves to enhance his position.

 

[Canis Lupus]

The following in red does not seem to be correct from one of the pages on that site:

"This would give the inhabited earth an age of about 2 billion years. Interestingly enough, the oldest undisputed organisms recognized by paleontologists - algae fossils like those from the Gunflint formation in Canada - are just about that old.** Altogether, 453 yuga cycles have elapsed since this day of Brahma began. Each yuga cycle involves a progression from a golden age of peace and spiritual progress to a final age of violence and spiritual degradation."



I can easily stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that evidence has been discovered of simple organisms on earth exceeding 4 billion years. If one is going to cite science in support, even of something spiritual, one needs to do it correctly.

shud point out that in the first place i did not cite in support that page u (deservedly or not) chose to nitpik & that u don't even have the common netiquette courtesy to provide ur own link in support of ur 'understanding'.
if posting unsupported claims while pouncing on a strawman is ur idea of how to 'do it correctly', then it's fairly obvious ur in no position to set yourself as an authority on correctness.

also if u had checked the copyright located at the bottom of every page u wud see that the info presented was current as of 2003 & should come as no surprise some facts will have become dated.
the evidence u speak of has a) either been discovered after the book was published.
or b) perhaps the new evidence is not completely without dispute & the 2 billion year figure was chosen as the minimum that everyone can agree upon.

it don't really matter tho in any event since a) none of that invalidates what was on the page i actually linked to.
and b) pushing the date further back (of the earliest discovered life forms on earth) is exactly the underlying premise the author is putting forward & only serves to enhance his position.

The "one" I was referring to was not you, but the author of the page. Sorry for the confusion. I can see how I could have expressed that more clearly to make that clear in retrospect.

As to the balance of what you or that website is saying, I make no comment either way, except to point out what I did. It doesn't invalidate what is being said but leaves it open to being dismissed because of errors like that by others. The page you linked to can't, in my opinion, be divorced from the site's other pages. I'm not sure if you are correct in stating that it enhances the underlying premise of what it is putting forward. It is being quite exact in its dating, and contrary to what is being asserted, the science in the area does not fit into its time blocks. Mind you, I'm not saying the science is correct or exact or that its possible conflict with science means it is wrong, but it doesn't fit neatly as it is being asserted.


As for me providing a link to my assertion, it was discussed and provided on page 10 of this thread.

 

[EMF]

I find it interesting, but not surprising, after reading this exchange; that your post is the one that was possibly misinterpreted.

 

[Hirpm]

Yes, I think she's great. And, I'm okay with religion, until it get organized!

 

[bongoboy]

The God in the Bible - Not a chance. Nice story with some historical references but no.

While I don't have children I could not imagine banishing my son or daughter to a eternity of damnation in hell (yes burning flesh, torture fire etc or even doughnuts ASI the Simpsons or even Bill and Teds Hells) for using my name in vain, rebelling against me, having sex before being married or being gay. So I can't relate to Gods point to all this. Here's a nice list... http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/40SinsThatWillSendYouToHell.html

Also why did God hate the Chinese? I took thousands of years to get Gods message to China so imagine all those poor Chinese in eternal damnation in hell just because they didn't get the email soon enough.

Could there be a single universal creator yeah sure why not. That's easy to deal with and can easily be held in the imagination of the dopiest people. M-theory though now that I need explained to me again but it's probably equally as plausible.