تويت
السلام عليكم يا دعاة الله...
اني والله من موقع لأخر ابحث فيه عن اناس تعينني...
تحاججهم وتناظرهم بمنطقهم لتفحمهم.....وتسكت اللسنتهم........
فبعد ان سألت ماتعني الحياة لهم غاص بنا الحديث للوصول لسؤالهم لي من خلق الكون...فاجبتهم الله تعالى....
فكل ماحولنا يدل على وجود خالق....فسار بهم الشيطان ان سالوني...إذا كان لكل شيء خالق...فمن خلق الخالق
تعلى الله عن ذلك..وهو الواحد الأحد...لكنهم يحاولون اسكاتي وغقناعي والله الحمد ان إيماني قوي...بأن العالم كله
مجرد صدفة وتتطور....
ولكـــــــــــــــم بعض احاديثهم...
الحوار بالإنجليزي...ولغتي للاسف ليست قويه...لكني حاولت....
....حديث الملحد....معي عن كيفية الخلق...فقلت له ان تامل الحياة ستجد ان كل شيء يثبت لك وجود خالق...فكان رده:
(Well, I'm struggling to understand what you're saying, so my apologies if I misinterpret something.
You talk about "contemplating the world with your heart not your eyes" as if it had any real meaning. Contemplation, by definition, involves thinking. I look at the world and I see the world, I don't try to justify it through an existance that can never be proven for the simple fact that it isn't real, I look at the world and I see a chain of events, millions upon millions of actions, and consequently reactions, which lead us where we are today.
You see how irrational it is, that you promptly believe in the existance of a timeless, ageless, bodyless and spaceless entity which controls everything and can never be proven, yet you deny that, the world on it's own, is based on an age old rulle which is proven time and time again throughout our life: "For every action, there's a reaction".
What exactly don't I believe? In the existance of any "god" entity.
I know it sounds terribly cocky, but, I KNOW (uhoh...I better get a bigger email server..) there is no god.
There is no proof of his existance, there's no proof of any proof of his existance. On the other hand, I study people for a hobby. People in general, the way they think... Once you realize what makes them tick, it becomes so obvious that one "god" would have to be created. Humanity is flawed, weak, it dares not accept this and try to become better, it rather hide itself in ignorance, think "we're perfect, there's just something more perfect".
Don't things become a little harder, if suddently the image of god disapears? How convinient that god answers every hard question mankind needs, with an answer that in itself means nothing, and it's only justified by "god" himself.
And yes, I can discuss the subject, what else do you wanna discuss?)
و.........اكتشف انني ؤمن بالله و الواحد الأحد....فسألني....:
(You are capable of believing in ONE entity that created everything, but not that everything created one entity.
You deny the big bang theory as the start of everything, cause something had to create the big bang (and in your eyes, god/allah right?). So my question is, who created god/allah?
You cannot rationally accept that 1 individual beeing existed before time, space, yet deny that matter itself had to come before that one beeing.
So who or what created that entity? And if there's someone that supresseds (sp?) god, then doesn't your theory of god, the creator of everything, go straight down the drain?
Do you see where i'm going?)
وايضاً.........هنا يتحدث مع عضو اخر مؤمن بالمسيحيه بشكل قوي....لكنه غير مؤمن ابدا باي احد...
(Please, if jesus ever existed he died 2000 years ago, before you were even thought of. Hell, probably your entire bloodline had barely started.
Amazing how one person who's condemn to dieing, says he's doing it for the world, and he world worships it.).
....كما بداء اخبرته ان ديننالا يسمح لنا بالخوض بماهية الله....وهنا كنت قد استعنت بإحدى دكتورات الكليه...
فنصحتني بهذا الرد(عدم الخوض في مهية الخالق) فكان منه هذا:
Off course islamism tell you to accept religion as it is, as in ANY religion, thinking is bad. The more you think, the more you see through it.
You still haven't replied to my post. HOW do you believe that one thing, could exist before everything else?
You can't accept that someone or something had to create that one entity the "creator", but you CAN accept that something created the entire universe? How does that make sense?
So you can believe in what ONE person wrote thousands of years ago in a time where knowledge wasn't....really abundant.. But you can't accept what I'm logicly explaining to you?
And nop, I don't see jesus, and again, I don't believe in those who do. Your point?
Notice that a lot of your "beliefs", don't make sense when you think about it, do they?
The big bang? or the big bang theory? The big bang theory came from several scientists (afaik) who studied the subject for several years and agreed that, at one point, there was matter and anti mater, due to this relation the matter started compressing itself together, until it got to the point of saturation, which caused itself to explode imensily and scatter, causing what now know as universe.
The creation of planets and such, even life itself, is explained through science aswell, unfortunetly I can't explain it too well. I'm not a scientist, but I can understand it.
تطور الموضوع بدخول إحدا المسيحيات المتعصبات لدينها وللمسيح....فعارضته ...وحاولت الرد عليه...
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm(
But what if I am unable to do anything? You told me that you would tie me up and slowly kill my family in front of me. Just because I DIDN'T say whether or not I would do anything doesn't mean I wouldn't try to do something. (Holy cow! Did that make any sense?) I would probably try to stop you in as peaceful a manner as possible. But since I am tied to a chair I can't really do much can I? I would probably try to convice you to kill me instead of them, I might even beg you not to kill them. But I would DEFINITELY be praying, which IS doing something. Besides, I haven't had that experience. I haven't had to face that kind of a thing. Granted, someday I probably will. Whether you are the one killing them or not, we will see.
This argument on love/hate is pointless because you cannot understand God's love. It's only through the KNOWLEGE of the Holy Spirit that you can understand God's love. You can try to comprehend it, but it's uncomprehendable. Even as a Christian, I cannot fully understand. So I do not expect you to understand it.
Yeah that would work. "Excuse me sir, could you NOT kill my family?
Ah! But we're not discussing "god's love", we're discussing Human love.
Off course you can't understand it, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. You just WANT to believe it, so you accept that you don't understand it...
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
I shall then pose the same problem to you that pose to me. Where did your "matter" come from? Evolutionists agree that spontanious life generation is impossible. And they admit that they can't PROVE that evolution is true and they have no idea where life came from. Soo... you are telling me that in the beginning, there was nothing and that nothing exploaded into something?
Matter and anti-matter aren't "nothing". Actually, anti-matter is nothing, because "nothing" is everything that's oposite to everything, thus anti-matter.
Off course we can't prove EVERYTHING yet, ffs, took us thousands of years to find out what lightning was...but we did. And it wasn't "god's wrath" as everybody said it was back then.
You know, Galileu was sentenced to death and would have been executed had he not publicly denied his statement that the earth was round. The fact we haven't found a scientific answer to everything, doesn't mean there isn't one, we just didn't find it yet.
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
How can you say it doesn't take faith to believe that? You are not using logic when try to prove evolution right. Because evolution in itself is illiogical.
Evolution is the adaptation of setient beeings to the challanges they face. We testify evolution everyday. Did you know that, due to society's major use of the thumb, specially in kids (game consoles, "thumb" designed switchs, controllers..and so on) it HAS slowly began to "mutate"? It's groing stronger and more dexterous with every generation. Want a better proof of evolution?
You know what's ironic? religions themselfs are a proof of evolution... But that's another story.
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
I KNOW some very logical people (NOT christians by the way). Adults, teenagers, whom ever. And by studying evolution they have concluded that there is no way that the Earth could've "just come into being" unless there was a God. Also the Bible has been proven historically acurate.
I know people who say Avril Lavigne CAN sing... Go figure...
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
So... I deduce that if it is historically acurate we have proof that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old because there were people alive then to write about it. However, with evolution you have nothing to go on except your own imagination. (Though, granted, there are SOME things that could prove evolutuion. However they are nil.)
Ah, but alas, not true.
Just because someone didn't write down a document saying "We're humans, we exist, and we do stuff like..." doesn't mean they haven't left testimonies, even if acidentaly, of their presence and ways. Amber for once, skeletons. Forensics are amasing.
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
And before you tear me apart. I do belive in MICRO-evolution. Micro-evolution is what causes variations in kind. Hence why you have black hair and I have blonde. It's a variation. Dogs can only produce dogs and cats can only produce cats. Have you ever seen a dog producve a chicken? No. Genesis 1:24 and 25 say:
You're assuming evolution is something that happens in 10 minutes... Suddently OMG, MY FISH JUST GAVE LIFE TO A NEW SPECIES!
Now, you're going to deny me, that, for once, panters, cats, hienas, lions...don't have a LOT alike? Did god just run out of pacience and go "..meh..nobody's gonna notice..." It's god, he's perfect right? I'm sure "his" originality knows no bounds.
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
So that part of Bible is truth. God said that everything would only produce after it's own kind and it does. Dogs do not give birth to cats, cats do not give birth to rabbits, and monkeys do not give birth to humans. Argue against this if you wish. But I have studied both evolution and Creation and I have come to the logical conclusion that evolution is impossible. I've tried to see it from their POV, but it makes no sense.
If you would care to read more here are a couple websites that might help. They are SCIENTIFICALLY based websites.
Read above.
Ps: I've studied both too, in fact I was christian for about..the first 13 years of my life... If there's anything I regreat...
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
The first is: www.drdino.com The founder of this, Dr. Kent Hovind, has been a science teacher for 30 years. He knows his stuff. However the website is lacking some. He did a very awesome series of videos about evolution vs. Creation. (Which you can probably find in your library.) If you want articles about evolution go here: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php
The second one is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/ This one has a TON of information and is put together a little better than drdino.com. However they are both good sites. Also here is the link to the Answers section http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp great for questions about evolution and Creation. Also don't be afraid to send an email to the founders of either website. They are very willing to answer questions and debate. And they are exceptionally friendly.
I'll have to see those later, it's 1:21 am here...Just didn't forget it.
Of by the way, you have yet to reply to my other thread? Why? You've been on about..2...3 times already meanwhile, this post proves you DID have SOME time to post.
Xeque.
Dark Angel.)
فعدت للرد عليه بنقل موضوع .....25 سبب ينكر تطور الكون...
فما كان منه غير هذا الرد....
(
about Evolution there is
25 Reasons to Doubt the Theory of Evolution (With acknowledgement to Dr. Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creation)
1.
It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
Wrong. Everything is energy, everything is matter. The first living beeing was a unicelular organism. Like, say, the ones that appear in mold. Nobody carries mold, it's created if the proper conditions are met. And organisms show up there. This can be tested in a lab. Therefore, flawed.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
2.
The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.
Life itself proves evolution. Again, there's an article that scientifly PROVES the "thumb" is beeing mutated, growing stronger and more dexterous in every generation (very little off course), adapting itself to the fact that we use it a lot more nowadays
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
3.
Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.
Off course they do, you can't expect a gold fish to mutate into a dragon... But remember things started with ONE unicelular beeing...Which multiplied itself. A single cell has a LOT of room for mutation (keep in mind a single cell can replicate itself millions maybe billions of times)... After it replicated itself, more room for mutation and variation was born. You may notice you CAN classify most animals within cathegories, cause they share feats. This is because they evolved from the same "base" species, but depending on where they lived, who they had to face, the conditions they met, each involved in their own way. A polar bear is a bear... Only diference is that he's prepared for extremely low temperatures, cause he lives in them.
Remember, WE start with ONE single cell (ask ANY doctor), which then splits into bilions to form the little humans we are when we come out of our mothers. If we consider the first cells to exist had no boundries, nothing to tell them HOW to evolve... Anything could have happened.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
4.
Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.
This is wrong. It HAS been proven. Again, the thumb thing. IT'S HAPPENING NOW FFS. Everything develops out of need, not only does it make perfect sense, but it's easily proven with some research.
Oh and, a man who does weight lifting will not automaticly pass his body to his child, but if every man in his generation for hundreads of years is a body builder, their son will have a bigger genetic predisposion to building muscle.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
5.
Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.
Forced genetic mutations are, as the name says, FORCED. They have no need to develop, they're forced to it... Obviously the result won't be good. Cases of mutation through radiation for once (hiroshima for once). There was NO need for evolution, it was forced. So, obviously, it didn't turn out well.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
"A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)
Mutation may be random in the meaning that, example, if mankind suddenly had to mutate to live out of more co2 (carbon dioxide) than o2 (oxygen), our bodies would have to find a way for it to work first... That part would be pretty random.. Some children could be born with extra lungs or something, which would only cause them to breath more and to die faster.... But there still would be a porpuse for it, and within it's "randomness", it would have an objective, a need. Eventually a solution would be found (or we would all die...whichever happened faster)
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
6.
Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest") actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.
This is NOT true. Single cases of mutation MAY affect the suvivability of a subject in cases where comunities exist (for once, if a wolf mutated, it could be excluded from the pack for it, and die faster). However, it doesn't mean that all forms of mutation are liabilities. Take, for once, the already mentioned cases of polar bears. They adapted to the place they lived in. Without it the majority would die constantly (and eventually extinct) from the harsh climate.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
7.
Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.
We're born out of a single cell. How can you possibly say mutations cannot create "complex organs" if our entire body is created from ONE single cell (the enbrion (sp?) ).
Evolution is slow, we can't expect someone to, from one day to the other, become super human.
If I remember correctly there has been ONE case of a CANCER, that was soo developed that was beggining to form what could be considered an eye, and 3 teeth.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
8.
The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.
We can't copy them yet. Relax, we'll get there. You say we can't the sonars from dolphins, guess what? they can't copy our legs. But we HAVE sonars, and they're getting more and more effecient. Just give us time, we'll get there.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
9.
All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.
This is an erroneous assumption. For once, there are snakes with "stumps", cause they used to have legs. What IS true is that these..."half-evolutions" are rare, and many die. However, to say they don't exist you'd have to examine every living beeing on earth. And as I said, such cases have existed.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
10.
All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.
Gee, you're demanding. All known lifes started with 1 freaking cell, don't you think it created enough? 1 cell created thousands(maybe millions?) of original species, which created more and more and more and more and more...
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
11.
Species are only observed going into extinction, never coming into existence.
No shit, were you there 40 million years ago or something? You can't observe species comming into existence unless you spend hundreads, thousands, maybe millions of years following all exemplars of a single species until one does envolve.
I've never personally witnessed a murder, they happen.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
12.
The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.
Who said those forms weren't in trasition themselfs?
And hello? Millions of years ago..? What did you expect? Clean, concise, precise and explanatory written files about what happened? We're lucky we found ANYTHING.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
13.
The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.
Not true, life started from a single cell. Just because nobody has been able to define or hasn't come around to trying to define what happened in between, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
14.
Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors.
Cells. Every living thing, as far as I know, is constituted by cells. Some of the "original" cells developed into fish, others into something else, others into insects. Nothing's confusing about that.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
15.
Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other
(symbiotic relationships).
Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first, it could not have survived. Since all members of these groups have survived, they must have come into existence simultaneously. The only possible answer for their existence is "intelligent design".
You're assuming their evolution would have been bad. Their evolution could have made them better at what they did. Which is the entire porpuse of evolution.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
16.
It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.
Again, we can't explain it, YET. Thousands of years ago we couldn't explain rain, or thunder, or fire.. Now we do. Give us time, we'll get there.
Oh and, we're born out of the evolution of a single cell. We reproduce through sexual methods...Need I say more?
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
17.
Human speech and languages did not evolve - in fact the best evidence is that languages "devolve". Speech is uniquely human. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact show that speech appears to be learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If so, the first humans must have been endowed with a speaking ability (intelligent input). There is no evidence that speech has evolved.
Lol? How can ANYONE say speech and language wasn't evolution? First comes the grumbling, then the making sense out of the grumbling.. To make it easier they gave the grumbling meanings and rules. And therefore language was born. Our brain's a pretty thick idiot about some stuff, but very astute in others.
How do you think sign language was invented?
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
18.
Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.
...Hello? Remember how we're BORN? ..Duh..
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
19.
The existence of similarities between different forms of life implies a common designer, not a common ancestor. One would not, for example, assume that a submarine evolved into an "amphibious" seaplane, which in turn evolved into a passenger airliner. All might have common features such as propellers, internal combustion engines, and ####l frameworks - but this is simply an indication of a common intelligent designer (man), not a common ancestor (the submarine).
Submarines aren't life forms, seaplanes aren't life forms. And species have ancestors. This one is totally flawed from the start.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
20.
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but there are no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or 5 cells, and the forms of life with 6 to 20 cells are parasites. If evolution occurred, one should find many forms of life with 2 to 20 cells as transitional forms between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
This is getting ridiculous, there ARE some forms of life with few cells. There ARE forms of life with 2 and 3 cells... Micro organisms...
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
21.
As an embryo develops, it does not repeat an evolutionary sequence. Although it is widely known that Ernst Haeckel, who popularized this belief, deliberately falsified his drawings, they are still used in current biology textbooks.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean here.... I just don't understand the statement. If you can clarify it, I may be able to answer it.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
22.
No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.
WRONG. Life HAS, OFICIALLY been found on Mars. Seriously, is whoever wrote this a pathological lier?
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
23.
Ape-men never existed. It is now acknowledged that "Piltdown man" was a hoax; the only evidence for "Nebraska man" turned out to be a pig's tooth; Eugene Bubois conceded forty years after he discovered "Java man" that it was just a large gibbon; the skulls of "Peking man" are now considered by many to be the remains of apes; the classification Homo erectus is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.
This is EXACTLY the oposite of what I read and hear on science related tv programs. Since so far I'm at 22-0 (one I didn't understand), I find the veracity of this statement questionable.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
24.
The earth's sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly, not slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence of erosion between layers. The existence of fossils dictates a sudden deposition of sediments. "Polystrate" fossils (those that span multiple strata) can only be explained by rapid burial in multiple sedimentary layers that were liquefied or soft at the time. The "millions of years" assigned to the geological strata and the evolutionary tree is based entirely on unfounded assumptions.
In the beginning there was a LOT of vulcanic activity on earth, this "created" a lot of "layers", including those which made some nice little fossiles.
What was created with the big bang was tecnicly the earth's core, and very little else (not JUST the core, but not a lot more neither).
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
25.
Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually indicate that the earth is "young", not "old".
And where are these proofs that the earth is "young"? Considering life existed for millions of years, "young" would be a relative term off course.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
i'm not finshed yet , but I'll be back.
24 - 0 (one I had no idea what it meant...so can't count for neither since I had no chance to refute it)
Neither am I. And I'm allways around. )
و لجعل الموضوع اكثر وضوحا ....فالكلام بالون الأحمر هي ردوده ....
فانا لم اعجز ولكني احتاج إلى من يساندني ويعطيني المواد التي استند عليها بثقة...
وغير ذلك هناك الكثير من يرد على مقالاتي ولكن هو اكثر من يصر على معارضتي....
فارجو المساعده بسرعه وهذا هو رابط الموضوع لمن اراد المشاركة بالخير.......
http://www.mangaschool.com/smf/index.php?topic=754.0
واسأل الله العلي القدير لي ولكم...كل التوفيق...
اني والله من موقع لأخر ابحث فيه عن اناس تعينني...
تحاججهم وتناظرهم بمنطقهم لتفحمهم.....وتسكت اللسنتهم........
فبعد ان سألت ماتعني الحياة لهم غاص بنا الحديث للوصول لسؤالهم لي من خلق الكون...فاجبتهم الله تعالى....
فكل ماحولنا يدل على وجود خالق....فسار بهم الشيطان ان سالوني...إذا كان لكل شيء خالق...فمن خلق الخالق
تعلى الله عن ذلك..وهو الواحد الأحد...لكنهم يحاولون اسكاتي وغقناعي والله الحمد ان إيماني قوي...بأن العالم كله
مجرد صدفة وتتطور....
ولكـــــــــــــــم بعض احاديثهم...
الحوار بالإنجليزي...ولغتي للاسف ليست قويه...لكني حاولت....
....حديث الملحد....معي عن كيفية الخلق...فقلت له ان تامل الحياة ستجد ان كل شيء يثبت لك وجود خالق...فكان رده:
(Well, I'm struggling to understand what you're saying, so my apologies if I misinterpret something.
You talk about "contemplating the world with your heart not your eyes" as if it had any real meaning. Contemplation, by definition, involves thinking. I look at the world and I see the world, I don't try to justify it through an existance that can never be proven for the simple fact that it isn't real, I look at the world and I see a chain of events, millions upon millions of actions, and consequently reactions, which lead us where we are today.
You see how irrational it is, that you promptly believe in the existance of a timeless, ageless, bodyless and spaceless entity which controls everything and can never be proven, yet you deny that, the world on it's own, is based on an age old rulle which is proven time and time again throughout our life: "For every action, there's a reaction".
What exactly don't I believe? In the existance of any "god" entity.
I know it sounds terribly cocky, but, I KNOW (uhoh...I better get a bigger email server..) there is no god.
There is no proof of his existance, there's no proof of any proof of his existance. On the other hand, I study people for a hobby. People in general, the way they think... Once you realize what makes them tick, it becomes so obvious that one "god" would have to be created. Humanity is flawed, weak, it dares not accept this and try to become better, it rather hide itself in ignorance, think "we're perfect, there's just something more perfect".
Don't things become a little harder, if suddently the image of god disapears? How convinient that god answers every hard question mankind needs, with an answer that in itself means nothing, and it's only justified by "god" himself.
And yes, I can discuss the subject, what else do you wanna discuss?)
و.........اكتشف انني ؤمن بالله و الواحد الأحد....فسألني....:
(You are capable of believing in ONE entity that created everything, but not that everything created one entity.
You deny the big bang theory as the start of everything, cause something had to create the big bang (and in your eyes, god/allah right?). So my question is, who created god/allah?
You cannot rationally accept that 1 individual beeing existed before time, space, yet deny that matter itself had to come before that one beeing.
So who or what created that entity? And if there's someone that supresseds (sp?) god, then doesn't your theory of god, the creator of everything, go straight down the drain?
Do you see where i'm going?)
وايضاً.........هنا يتحدث مع عضو اخر مؤمن بالمسيحيه بشكل قوي....لكنه غير مؤمن ابدا باي احد...
(Please, if jesus ever existed he died 2000 years ago, before you were even thought of. Hell, probably your entire bloodline had barely started.
Amazing how one person who's condemn to dieing, says he's doing it for the world, and he world worships it.).
....كما بداء اخبرته ان ديننالا يسمح لنا بالخوض بماهية الله....وهنا كنت قد استعنت بإحدى دكتورات الكليه...
فنصحتني بهذا الرد(عدم الخوض في مهية الخالق) فكان منه هذا:
Off course islamism tell you to accept religion as it is, as in ANY religion, thinking is bad. The more you think, the more you see through it.
You still haven't replied to my post. HOW do you believe that one thing, could exist before everything else?
You can't accept that someone or something had to create that one entity the "creator", but you CAN accept that something created the entire universe? How does that make sense?
So you can believe in what ONE person wrote thousands of years ago in a time where knowledge wasn't....really abundant.. But you can't accept what I'm logicly explaining to you?
And nop, I don't see jesus, and again, I don't believe in those who do. Your point?
Notice that a lot of your "beliefs", don't make sense when you think about it, do they?
The big bang? or the big bang theory? The big bang theory came from several scientists (afaik) who studied the subject for several years and agreed that, at one point, there was matter and anti mater, due to this relation the matter started compressing itself together, until it got to the point of saturation, which caused itself to explode imensily and scatter, causing what now know as universe.
The creation of planets and such, even life itself, is explained through science aswell, unfortunetly I can't explain it too well. I'm not a scientist, but I can understand it.
تطور الموضوع بدخول إحدا المسيحيات المتعصبات لدينها وللمسيح....فعارضته ...وحاولت الرد عليه...
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm(
But what if I am unable to do anything? You told me that you would tie me up and slowly kill my family in front of me. Just because I DIDN'T say whether or not I would do anything doesn't mean I wouldn't try to do something. (Holy cow! Did that make any sense?) I would probably try to stop you in as peaceful a manner as possible. But since I am tied to a chair I can't really do much can I? I would probably try to convice you to kill me instead of them, I might even beg you not to kill them. But I would DEFINITELY be praying, which IS doing something. Besides, I haven't had that experience. I haven't had to face that kind of a thing. Granted, someday I probably will. Whether you are the one killing them or not, we will see.
This argument on love/hate is pointless because you cannot understand God's love. It's only through the KNOWLEGE of the Holy Spirit that you can understand God's love. You can try to comprehend it, but it's uncomprehendable. Even as a Christian, I cannot fully understand. So I do not expect you to understand it.
Yeah that would work. "Excuse me sir, could you NOT kill my family?
Ah! But we're not discussing "god's love", we're discussing Human love.
Off course you can't understand it, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. You just WANT to believe it, so you accept that you don't understand it...
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
I shall then pose the same problem to you that pose to me. Where did your "matter" come from? Evolutionists agree that spontanious life generation is impossible. And they admit that they can't PROVE that evolution is true and they have no idea where life came from. Soo... you are telling me that in the beginning, there was nothing and that nothing exploaded into something?
Matter and anti-matter aren't "nothing". Actually, anti-matter is nothing, because "nothing" is everything that's oposite to everything, thus anti-matter.
Off course we can't prove EVERYTHING yet, ffs, took us thousands of years to find out what lightning was...but we did. And it wasn't "god's wrath" as everybody said it was back then.
You know, Galileu was sentenced to death and would have been executed had he not publicly denied his statement that the earth was round. The fact we haven't found a scientific answer to everything, doesn't mean there isn't one, we just didn't find it yet.
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
How can you say it doesn't take faith to believe that? You are not using logic when try to prove evolution right. Because evolution in itself is illiogical.
Evolution is the adaptation of setient beeings to the challanges they face. We testify evolution everyday. Did you know that, due to society's major use of the thumb, specially in kids (game consoles, "thumb" designed switchs, controllers..and so on) it HAS slowly began to "mutate"? It's groing stronger and more dexterous with every generation. Want a better proof of evolution?
You know what's ironic? religions themselfs are a proof of evolution... But that's another story.
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
I KNOW some very logical people (NOT christians by the way). Adults, teenagers, whom ever. And by studying evolution they have concluded that there is no way that the Earth could've "just come into being" unless there was a God. Also the Bible has been proven historically acurate.
I know people who say Avril Lavigne CAN sing... Go figure...
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
So... I deduce that if it is historically acurate we have proof that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old because there were people alive then to write about it. However, with evolution you have nothing to go on except your own imagination. (Though, granted, there are SOME things that could prove evolutuion. However they are nil.)
Ah, but alas, not true.
Just because someone didn't write down a document saying "We're humans, we exist, and we do stuff like..." doesn't mean they haven't left testimonies, even if acidentaly, of their presence and ways. Amber for once, skeletons. Forensics are amasing.
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
And before you tear me apart. I do belive in MICRO-evolution. Micro-evolution is what causes variations in kind. Hence why you have black hair and I have blonde. It's a variation. Dogs can only produce dogs and cats can only produce cats. Have you ever seen a dog producve a chicken? No. Genesis 1:24 and 25 say:
You're assuming evolution is something that happens in 10 minutes... Suddently OMG, MY FISH JUST GAVE LIFE TO A NEW SPECIES!
Now, you're going to deny me, that, for once, panters, cats, hienas, lions...don't have a LOT alike? Did god just run out of pacience and go "..meh..nobody's gonna notice..." It's god, he's perfect right? I'm sure "his" originality knows no bounds.
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
So that part of Bible is truth. God said that everything would only produce after it's own kind and it does. Dogs do not give birth to cats, cats do not give birth to rabbits, and monkeys do not give birth to humans. Argue against this if you wish. But I have studied both evolution and Creation and I have come to the logical conclusion that evolution is impossible. I've tried to see it from their POV, but it makes no sense.
If you would care to read more here are a couple websites that might help. They are SCIENTIFICALLY based websites.
Read above.
Ps: I've studied both too, in fact I was christian for about..the first 13 years of my life... If there's anything I regreat...
Quote from: Little Shinikami on October 29, 2006, 05:09:27 pm
The first is: www.drdino.com The founder of this, Dr. Kent Hovind, has been a science teacher for 30 years. He knows his stuff. However the website is lacking some. He did a very awesome series of videos about evolution vs. Creation. (Which you can probably find in your library.) If you want articles about evolution go here: http://www.drdino.com/articles.php
The second one is: http://www.answersingenesis.org/ This one has a TON of information and is put together a little better than drdino.com. However they are both good sites. Also here is the link to the Answers section http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp great for questions about evolution and Creation. Also don't be afraid to send an email to the founders of either website. They are very willing to answer questions and debate. And they are exceptionally friendly.
I'll have to see those later, it's 1:21 am here...Just didn't forget it.
Of by the way, you have yet to reply to my other thread? Why? You've been on about..2...3 times already meanwhile, this post proves you DID have SOME time to post.
Xeque.
Dark Angel.)
فعدت للرد عليه بنقل موضوع .....25 سبب ينكر تطور الكون...
فما كان منه غير هذا الرد....
(
about Evolution there is
25 Reasons to Doubt the Theory of Evolution (With acknowledgement to Dr. Walt Brown, Center for Scientific Creation)
1.
It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).
Wrong. Everything is energy, everything is matter. The first living beeing was a unicelular organism. Like, say, the ones that appear in mold. Nobody carries mold, it's created if the proper conditions are met. And organisms show up there. This can be tested in a lab. Therefore, flawed.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
2.
The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.
Life itself proves evolution. Again, there's an article that scientifly PROVES the "thumb" is beeing mutated, growing stronger and more dexterous in every generation (very little off course), adapting itself to the fact that we use it a lot more nowadays
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
3.
Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.
Off course they do, you can't expect a gold fish to mutate into a dragon... But remember things started with ONE unicelular beeing...Which multiplied itself. A single cell has a LOT of room for mutation (keep in mind a single cell can replicate itself millions maybe billions of times)... After it replicated itself, more room for mutation and variation was born. You may notice you CAN classify most animals within cathegories, cause they share feats. This is because they evolved from the same "base" species, but depending on where they lived, who they had to face, the conditions they met, each involved in their own way. A polar bear is a bear... Only diference is that he's prepared for extremely low temperatures, cause he lives in them.
Remember, WE start with ONE single cell (ask ANY doctor), which then splits into bilions to form the little humans we are when we come out of our mothers. If we consider the first cells to exist had no boundries, nothing to tell them HOW to evolve... Anything could have happened.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
4.
Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.
This is wrong. It HAS been proven. Again, the thumb thing. IT'S HAPPENING NOW FFS. Everything develops out of need, not only does it make perfect sense, but it's easily proven with some research.
Oh and, a man who does weight lifting will not automaticly pass his body to his child, but if every man in his generation for hundreads of years is a body builder, their son will have a bigger genetic predisposion to building muscle.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
5.
Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.
Forced genetic mutations are, as the name says, FORCED. They have no need to develop, they're forced to it... Obviously the result won't be good. Cases of mutation through radiation for once (hiroshima for once). There was NO need for evolution, it was forced. So, obviously, it didn't turn out well.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
"A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)
Mutation may be random in the meaning that, example, if mankind suddenly had to mutate to live out of more co2 (carbon dioxide) than o2 (oxygen), our bodies would have to find a way for it to work first... That part would be pretty random.. Some children could be born with extra lungs or something, which would only cause them to breath more and to die faster.... But there still would be a porpuse for it, and within it's "randomness", it would have an objective, a need. Eventually a solution would be found (or we would all die...whichever happened faster)
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
6.
Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest") actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.
This is NOT true. Single cases of mutation MAY affect the suvivability of a subject in cases where comunities exist (for once, if a wolf mutated, it could be excluded from the pack for it, and die faster). However, it doesn't mean that all forms of mutation are liabilities. Take, for once, the already mentioned cases of polar bears. They adapted to the place they lived in. Without it the majority would die constantly (and eventually extinct) from the harsh climate.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
7.
Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.
We're born out of a single cell. How can you possibly say mutations cannot create "complex organs" if our entire body is created from ONE single cell (the enbrion (sp?) ).
Evolution is slow, we can't expect someone to, from one day to the other, become super human.
If I remember correctly there has been ONE case of a CANCER, that was soo developed that was beggining to form what could be considered an eye, and 3 teeth.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
8.
The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.
We can't copy them yet. Relax, we'll get there. You say we can't the sonars from dolphins, guess what? they can't copy our legs. But we HAVE sonars, and they're getting more and more effecient. Just give us time, we'll get there.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
9.
All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.
This is an erroneous assumption. For once, there are snakes with "stumps", cause they used to have legs. What IS true is that these..."half-evolutions" are rare, and many die. However, to say they don't exist you'd have to examine every living beeing on earth. And as I said, such cases have existed.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
10.
All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.
Gee, you're demanding. All known lifes started with 1 freaking cell, don't you think it created enough? 1 cell created thousands(maybe millions?) of original species, which created more and more and more and more and more...
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
11.
Species are only observed going into extinction, never coming into existence.
No shit, were you there 40 million years ago or something? You can't observe species comming into existence unless you spend hundreads, thousands, maybe millions of years following all exemplars of a single species until one does envolve.
I've never personally witnessed a murder, they happen.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
12.
The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.
Who said those forms weren't in trasition themselfs?
And hello? Millions of years ago..? What did you expect? Clean, concise, precise and explanatory written files about what happened? We're lucky we found ANYTHING.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
13.
The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.
Not true, life started from a single cell. Just because nobody has been able to define or hasn't come around to trying to define what happened in between, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
14.
Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors.
Cells. Every living thing, as far as I know, is constituted by cells. Some of the "original" cells developed into fish, others into something else, others into insects. Nothing's confusing about that.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
15.
Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other
(symbiotic relationships).
Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first, it could not have survived. Since all members of these groups have survived, they must have come into existence simultaneously. The only possible answer for their existence is "intelligent design".
You're assuming their evolution would have been bad. Their evolution could have made them better at what they did. Which is the entire porpuse of evolution.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
16.
It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.
Again, we can't explain it, YET. Thousands of years ago we couldn't explain rain, or thunder, or fire.. Now we do. Give us time, we'll get there.
Oh and, we're born out of the evolution of a single cell. We reproduce through sexual methods...Need I say more?
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
17.
Human speech and languages did not evolve - in fact the best evidence is that languages "devolve". Speech is uniquely human. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact show that speech appears to be learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If so, the first humans must have been endowed with a speaking ability (intelligent input). There is no evidence that speech has evolved.
Lol? How can ANYONE say speech and language wasn't evolution? First comes the grumbling, then the making sense out of the grumbling.. To make it easier they gave the grumbling meanings and rules. And therefore language was born. Our brain's a pretty thick idiot about some stuff, but very astute in others.
How do you think sign language was invented?
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
18.
Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.
...Hello? Remember how we're BORN? ..Duh..
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
19.
The existence of similarities between different forms of life implies a common designer, not a common ancestor. One would not, for example, assume that a submarine evolved into an "amphibious" seaplane, which in turn evolved into a passenger airliner. All might have common features such as propellers, internal combustion engines, and ####l frameworks - but this is simply an indication of a common intelligent designer (man), not a common ancestor (the submarine).
Submarines aren't life forms, seaplanes aren't life forms. And species have ancestors. This one is totally flawed from the start.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
20.
Many single-celled forms of life exist, but there are no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or 5 cells, and the forms of life with 6 to 20 cells are parasites. If evolution occurred, one should find many forms of life with 2 to 20 cells as transitional forms between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
This is getting ridiculous, there ARE some forms of life with few cells. There ARE forms of life with 2 and 3 cells... Micro organisms...
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
21.
As an embryo develops, it does not repeat an evolutionary sequence. Although it is widely known that Ernst Haeckel, who popularized this belief, deliberately falsified his drawings, they are still used in current biology textbooks.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean here.... I just don't understand the statement. If you can clarify it, I may be able to answer it.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
22.
No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.
WRONG. Life HAS, OFICIALLY been found on Mars. Seriously, is whoever wrote this a pathological lier?
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
23.
Ape-men never existed. It is now acknowledged that "Piltdown man" was a hoax; the only evidence for "Nebraska man" turned out to be a pig's tooth; Eugene Bubois conceded forty years after he discovered "Java man" that it was just a large gibbon; the skulls of "Peking man" are now considered by many to be the remains of apes; the classification Homo erectus is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.
This is EXACTLY the oposite of what I read and hear on science related tv programs. Since so far I'm at 22-0 (one I didn't understand), I find the veracity of this statement questionable.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
24.
The earth's sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly, not slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence of erosion between layers. The existence of fossils dictates a sudden deposition of sediments. "Polystrate" fossils (those that span multiple strata) can only be explained by rapid burial in multiple sedimentary layers that were liquefied or soft at the time. The "millions of years" assigned to the geological strata and the evolutionary tree is based entirely on unfounded assumptions.
In the beginning there was a LOT of vulcanic activity on earth, this "created" a lot of "layers", including those which made some nice little fossiles.
What was created with the big bang was tecnicly the earth's core, and very little else (not JUST the core, but not a lot more neither).
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
25.
Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually indicate that the earth is "young", not "old".
And where are these proofs that the earth is "young"? Considering life existed for millions of years, "young" would be a relative term off course.
Quote from: JeweL on Today at 07:10:53 AM
i'm not finshed yet , but I'll be back.
24 - 0 (one I had no idea what it meant...so can't count for neither since I had no chance to refute it)
Neither am I. And I'm allways around. )
و لجعل الموضوع اكثر وضوحا ....فالكلام بالون الأحمر هي ردوده ....
فانا لم اعجز ولكني احتاج إلى من يساندني ويعطيني المواد التي استند عليها بثقة...
وغير ذلك هناك الكثير من يرد على مقالاتي ولكن هو اكثر من يصر على معارضتي....
فارجو المساعده بسرعه وهذا هو رابط الموضوع لمن اراد المشاركة بالخير.......
http://www.mangaschool.com/smf/index.php?topic=754.0
واسأل الله العلي القدير لي ولكم...كل التوفيق...
تعليق