1. Comment #31880 by WalkingARazor on April 14, 2007 at 9:10 pm

Way to capitalize on human gullibility.

Other Comments by WalkingARazor

2. Comment #31881 by steveroot on April 14, 2007 at 9:12 pm

"We don't want to promote a belief in the supernatural and in superstition, which we do not know about."

Good one!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

3. Comment #31887 by Freelance Scientist on April 14, 2007 at 9:43 pm

Malaysian Islamic scholars have called for a halt to popular exhibitions billed as featuring ghosts, genies and other supernatural beings, saying they are forbidden and could undermine the faith of devout Muslims.

Oh the irony, supernatural suggestions are forbidden ?? Really ?

And to think that the faith of devout muslims is so shaky that shows containing ghosts and genies would be sufficient to bring the whole thing crumbling down !

It's one thing for beliefs of any value to survive doubt but another thing to ban or forbid anything that might cause doubt.

sheesh.

Other Comments by Freelance Scientist

4. Comment #31906 by adamhaar on April 14, 2007 at 11:04 pm

"We don't want to promote a belief in the supernatural and in superstition, which we do not know about. So we do not need to focus on such things or play them up by having such exhibitions."

So why then do they try to promote their superstitions and belief in their supernatural 'god'? If it's a threat to the faith of their believers, why not simply tell Muslims not to go? Let the rest of the country do their own thing. Just because a majority of the population are Muslim (Wikipedia quotes a 2000 census indicates approx. 60%) doesn't mean that they get to push aroung the rest of the population.

Other Comments by adamhaar

5. Comment #31942 by Smith on April 15, 2007 at 2:17 am

The quote itself sounds onionic.

Other Comments by Smith

6. Comment #31944 by chamber on April 15, 2007 at 2:25 am

I am not worried about genies but I am worried about the firs genes? How did they pop out?

Other Comments by chamber

7. Comment #31956 by RascoHeldall on April 15, 2007 at 3:36 am

"We don't want to promote a belief in the supernatural and in superstition, which we do not know about."

That, in one sentence, sums up why the Islam practiced in some countries poses such a threat to humanity. These Mullahs (or whatever they pretentiously call themselves) think their religious text is literal, historical fact, and they are so blithely unaware of the advances humanity has made, scientifically and philosophically, in the last 300 years that they are incapable of even seeing that there is an alternative to it.

For us to simply 'respect' this without further comment (especially when it comes to immigrants to our more enlightened shores) is to do a massive disservice to people with the misfortune to have been born in an intellectually and morally less-advanced area of our planet. ('National Fatwa Society' indeed!)

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

8. Comment #31959 by Rtambree on April 15, 2007 at 3:52 am

I agree. Too many supernatural shows on TV and in the movies. Way to go. :)

Other Comments by Rtambree

9. Comment #31979 by nancy2001 on April 15, 2007 at 5:30 am

So the Islamic scholars don't want people to believe in supernatural beings. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Other Comments by nancy2001

10. Comment #31983 by Cdat on April 15, 2007 at 5:52 am

The race between Christianity and Islam to say the dumbest thing gets more interesting every day...

Other Comments by Cdat

11. Comment #32020 by TranshumanAtheist on April 15, 2007 at 8:56 am

A.C. Grayling may have stumbled onto something when he traced the genealogy of the gods back to "fairies" (animistic forces in nature). Muslims feel that these lesser gods threaten the authority and status of their monopolistic mega-god. It makes me think of local mom-and-pop businesses taking costumers away from a big corporation.

Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist

12. Comment #32022 by Sunfish Rule on April 15, 2007 at 9:13 am

How shaky is your faith if you might be swooned by images of ghots. What's next, ghost houses? How are the good little muslims gonna enjoy Theme Park rides? Wont they think of their children!

Other Comments by Sunfish Rule

13. Comment #32025 by padster1976 on April 15, 2007 at 9:23 am

"We don't want to promote a belief in the supernatural and in superstition, which we do not know about."

What a piss-take!

Other Comments by padster1976

14. Comment #32031 by fallenone on April 15, 2007 at 10:01 am

And to think that the faith of devout muslims is so shaky that shows containing ghosts and genies would be sufficient to bring the whole thing crumbling down !

My thoughts exactly. The article made me smile, event though it's quite sad.

Other Comments by fallenone

15. Comment #32052 by savroD on April 15, 2007 at 11:00 am

This is exactly RD, as well as others, point out about fundamentalists, but more so the moderates. These people have no idea about how their own culture has evolved. They only want to maintain their control over others. Congratulations moderates, you get what you deserve!

Other Comments by savroD

16. Comment #32105 by foxfire on April 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm

What's next, ghost houses?

Hey Sunfish Rule - over here in the US, the Christian Fundies have set up "Hell Houses":

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hallo_he.htm

Great stuff for the kids.

Other Comments by foxfire

17. Comment #32130 by chamber on April 15, 2007 at 10:39 pm

So no answer to my question means you really do not know how the first gene popped out? We have to solve the problems with the material world first? By the way atheists do not believe in miracles or similar stuff since they are too smart like selfish genes, what is the all writing about? Let's talk about genes? Please! Do not be afraid of talking? Okay!

Other Comments by chamber

18. Comment #32135 by Veronique on April 15, 2007 at 11:30 pm

6. & 17. Comment #32130 by chamber

What on earth are you on about. I'm sorry but I can't understand what you are asking or why. I don't comprehend any relevance to this thread quite frankly.

Are you attempting to goad posters? Or just having a bit of unintelligle fun?

If you look back over these threads, I doubt whether you will find any poster afraid of talking. Why we all go on like veritable drains. Nothing seems to shut us up. Except disinterest, of course.

Be a little more understandable please

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

19. Comment #32150 by bitbutter on April 16, 2007 at 2:06 am

chamber: if you want to ask how genes got started the forums would be a better place to post that question.

Other Comments by bitbutter

20. Comment #32165 by chamber on April 16, 2007 at 3:36 am

What on earth are you on about. I'm sorry but I can't understand what you are asking or why. I don't comprehend any relevance to this thread quite frankly.

Okay I will be frank. What I am asking is how the first gene came out? If I see a glass of hot water on my dining table, I would figure out that somebody put it there. This is what my reason and intelligence makes me think.

Are you attempting to goad posters? Or just having a bit of unintelligle fun?

If you read all my comments you will see that how reasonable my questions and comments are. Evolution theory started it goading reason and reason is defending himself against this make up story.

If you look back over these threads, I doubt whether you will find any poster afraid of talking. Why we all go on like veritable drains. Nothing seems to shut us up. Except disinterest, of course.

It is all up to you whether you are interested in or not somebody will anyway. If you keep quite I understand because my comments and questions are addressing mind and reason. And if your reasoning cannot find an answer, that's quite all right with me.
By the way if my comments are reaching out somebody out there and I am sure they will, I would serve my purpose; to prove that evolution theory is a delusional story, just a story which even the schools took out of their curriculum.

Be a little more understandable please

I am all understanding and because I can think and I can reason with God's creation.


Cheers
Take care

Other Comments by chamber

21. Comment #32191 by Twinky on April 16, 2007 at 5:54 am

I am all understanding and because I can think and I can reason with God's creation.

Poe's Law anyone?

Other Comments by Twinky

22. Comment #32202 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 7:03 am

I see our Sunday drive-by godder is still hanging out. Odd that the neutered Spagmonster vanished, vowing to return, and lo and behold, a miracle--the awaited apparition of Chamber is amidst our heathen, brighty bright persons.

Here's hoping that chamber will have a glorious brighty, bright day!

Other Comments by Logicel

23. Comment #32206 by RascoHeldall on April 16, 2007 at 7:26 am

Okay I will be frank. What I am asking is how the first gene came out? If I see a glass of hot water on my dining table, I would figure out that somebody put it there. This is what my reason and intelligence makes me think.

Well, presumably like all other things that have taken place, it arose as a consequence of the laws of physics. In this case, in the 'primordial soup' of organic molecules, a chance sequence of reactions formed a molecule with the property of self-replication. (Such spontaneous formation of self-replicating molecules has been observed in the lab, and the scientists are fairly certain God wasn't doing it.) This initial 'gene' then passed on its 'genetic' material to future 'generations', and through natural selection of chance beneficial mutations the lineage evolved the sophisticated copying mechanism we see today.

That do ya? Or do you have a better suggestion?

By the way if my comments are reaching out somebody out there and I am sure they will, I would serve my purpose; to prove that evolution theory is a delusional story, just a story which even the schools took out of their curriculum.

So are you saying that the mountains of corroborating evidence gathered over the past 150 years, that all conclusively support Darwinism beyond any rational doubt, are a figment of everyone's imagination?

Wow – that's some global conspiracy theory you've got going there.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

24. Comment #32210 by edge100 on April 16, 2007 at 7:34 am

First-time poster, long-time lurker.

Okay I will be frank. What I am asking is how the first gene came out? If I see a glass of hot water on my dining table, I would figure out that somebody put it there. This is what my reason and intelligence makes me think.

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I just can't help.

Two things:

First, the question of how the first gene came about is valid. We don't know yet, in the same way that, at one point, we didn't know how the sun worked. Now we know about the conversion of mass into energy, and that explains the energy gained from nuclear fusion. The first 'gene' was certainly not in the form of DNA, and most likely not a nucleic acid at all. Any scientist worthy of the title will openly admit that we don't know the answer. But the extent to which we don't know the answer to something is not equivalent to the extent to which god explains that something; this is The God of the Gaps, plain and simple. And let's recall, in the "Gaps" battle, science is undefeated. God has explained exactly zero. Science doesn't have all the answers, but every answer we have is thanks to science. The 'first gene' question is an excellent one; suffice to say, we have people working on it. Watch this space.

Second, I agree that if you saw a glass of water sitting on a table, you'd think someone put it there; this is an entirely reasonable statement. But WHY is it reasonable? Because you know that human beings exist and are capable of filling a glass with hot water.

This is a reiteration of the 'Watchmaker Argument', which is invalid, in part, because it presupposes the existence of a 'watchmaker' (or glass-filler, if you'd prefer). Human beings exist and can fill glasses (or make watches); 'design' of life cannot be inferred by the same logic because whether a 'designer' exists has not be established. Circular logic is never valid, no matter how hard you try!

Other Comments by edge100

25. Comment #32212 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at 7:48 am

edge100, congrats on your graduation from lurker to poster. Nice post. Trolls are always useful for serious posters because trolls provide fodder and ammunition for the atheist's viewpoint. Hardworking trolls, gotta love 'em.

Other Comments by Logicel

26. Comment #32213 by Deimos on April 16, 2007 at 7:50 am

The Bible describes an explanation for the origin of the diversity of life. It is called 'Magical Creation'. It is now just a fairy-tale for grown ups.

The best and only theory that accounts for the diversity of life is the Modern Theory of Evolution. Charles Darwin recognised this and bought our attention to it in 1859.

Wishful thinkers pick holes with Evolution in the gaps of the fossil record, but it is like someone down a well shouting, there is only empty space here ergo the Earth is a myth. Everyone else gathers round the idiot in the well, and call out to him, "Get out of the Gap in the Earth and you shall see the Earth exists!"

Other Comments by Deimos

27. Comment #32228 by grandmagus on April 16, 2007 at 8:38 am

It is interesting to note that Moslems are required to believe in the existence of genies. There is even an entire chapter of the Koran devoted to genies. According to Islam, the genies themselves are required to be Moslems, as it is mentioned in the Koran that Muhammad was sent as a prophet to both "humanity and the jinn."

Other Comments by grandmagus

28. Comment #32231 by edge100 on April 16, 2007 at 8:47 am

"We don't want to promote a belief in the supernatural and in superstition, which we do not know about."

Wow. I would love to know what goes through the mind of someone who cannot see such fantastic irony. This is beautiful stuff.

Other Comments by edge100

29. Comment #32273 by steveroot on April 16, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Wow. I would love to know what goes through the mind of someone who cannot see such fantastic irony. This is beautiful stuff.

Mind? What mind?

Say, is that the "Chamber of Horrors"? ;-)
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

30. Comment #32355 by chamber on April 16, 2007 at 11:53 pm

Well, presumably like all other things that have taken place, it arose as a consequence of the laws of physics. In this case, in the 'primordial soup' of organic molecules, a chance sequence of reactions formed a molecule with the property of self-replication. (Such spontaneous formation of self-replicating molecules has been observed in the lab, and the scientists are fairly certain God wasn't doing it.) This initial 'gene' then passed on its 'genetic' material to future 'generations', and through natural selection of chance beneficial mutations the lineage evolved the sophisticated copying mechanism we see today.

That do ya? Or do you have a better suggestion?

Yes I have. Read the quotattions and read the whole article if you still have doubt. Still you couldn't get it, get back to me.

Quotation#1
•If you think of DNA as the cell's library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of the library, one kind of RNA checks out information from the DNA to line up left handed amino acids in the precise order for a particular protein.
•The amino acids are then linked together by a "molecular machine" made of another kind of RNA and several proteins. Each cell has many kinds of molecular machines.
Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor, each of the cell's machines is more evidence for an intelligent Creator.
After having taught for 40 or 50 years that life began when amino acids linked together in organic soup in the ocean and formed proteins, atheists are abandoning this claim because amino acids:
•Do not concentrate in the ocean. They disperse and break down.
•Outside of cells, amino acids will not link together in nature to form proteins, not even when scientists help them by buying all left-handed amino acids from a chemical supply house to make the perfect organic soup.
•Proteins could not get together with DNA in a primordial soup because DNA does not form outside of cells either. Scientists can't even make DNA in the laboratory.

Quotation#2
In all modern organisms, DNA contains in encrypted form the instructions for the manufacture of proteins. More specifically, encoded within DNA is the exact order in which amino acids, selected at each step from 20 distinct varieties should be strung together to form all of the organism's proteins."5
Information never develops apart from intelligence, yet cells contain huge amounts of information. I believe this is the most important single evidence that life came from the mind of an intelligent Creator rather than from dumb chemicals.


Quotation#3
All known languages, alphabets and codes, as well as the information spoken or written in them, originated in minds. The faith of the atheist that the first life was an exception is contrary to all known evidence.
Some have argued that monkeys beating at random on a typewriter or computer keyboard might eventually produce a few recognizable words, which would be information. How many words would the monkeys type if no one had designed any alphabet or keyboard or computer, and they had to beat on the dirt?
It's hard to be an atheist. One must have faith that, contrary to all evidence, not just a few words but huge amounts of usable information, and the language and code with which the information was written, popped up by themselves.

Quoted from Cryptozoology, Living Dinosaurs, and Origins
http://livingdinos.com/byebyevolution

Other Comments by chamber

31. Comment #32359 by chamber on April 17, 2007 at 12:16 am

First you can read my quotations about genes and i am sure it will silence you and your troll-like imaginary genes.

Second, I agree that if you saw a glass of water sitting on a table, you'd think someone put it there; this is an entirely reasonable statement. But WHY is it reasonable? Because you know that human beings exist and are capable of filling a glass with hot water.

So genes are the intelligent creatures that are capable of keep producing thousands kinds of animals and plants. What a lovely copy machine working on its own and no needing a user. Please refer to my quotations. Don'T try hard. Take it easy. You will be there if you speak to your kids because kids are more reasonable than adults. I brought a small worm to my house and asked my daughter to greet her ancestor. She looked at me and said, " Come on father. Don't be funny. Who is going to be so dummy that worms are out great great great.... grandfather?

This is a reiteration of the 'Watchmaker Argument', which is invalid, in part, because it presupposes the existence of a 'watchmaker' (or glass-filler, if you'd prefer). Human beings exist and can fill glasses (or make watches); 'design' of life cannot be inferred by the same logic because whether a 'designer' exists has not be established. Circular logic is never valid, no matter how hard you try!

Logic and reason are the keys to the door of truth. If one says something or proposes something illogical, we use our logic and reason, in any case, to check. No answer to my comments or questions does not mean that logic is invalid, but it means that logic does not fit in what it is said. As we see quoted articles, Science as well definetely proves that DNA RNA need a designer. If we are against science and logic then we are in delusional world playing with ourselves only.
Watchmakers are not blind but the one who writes blind watchmakers is blind.

Other Comments by chamber

32. Comment #32360 by chamber on April 17, 2007 at 12:18 am

Wow. I would love to know what goes through the mind of someone who cannot see such fantastic irony. This is beautiful stuff.

Mind? What mind?

Say, is that the "Chamber of Horrors"? ;-)
Steve

No the chamber of genes, They are playing in a pond happily waiting for to find cell to hop in. Would you like to join them?

Other Comments by chamber

33. Comment #32367 by chamber on April 17, 2007 at 12:39 am

Comment #32202 by Logicel on April 16, 2007 at
I see our Sunday drive-by godder is still hanging out. Odd that the neutered Spagmonster vanished, vowing to return, and lo and behold, a miracle--the awaited apparition of Chamber is amidst our heathen, brighty bright persons.

Here's hoping that chamber will have a glorious brighty, bright day!


I had a bright day when i read your comment. How did you learn to write like that? I know it is not Shakespear. Sorry I have to go build my computer. No wait! Do you know the phone number of evolution. It can do it right. Good God! Why didn't I think it before?
Me: Hello is that Mr Evolution?
Evolution: speaking
Me: I have got a computer to build. Can you do fix it?
Evolution. I am sorry I can't fix the things.
Me: But they say you can do it.
Evolution: I have no mind no wisdom no knowledge. How can i do that. Be logical. I am already pissed off with Darwin. It evolved - sorry - involved my name in everything. I lost my face. Even his funny followers took me up to space to fix the sun, the planets and solar systems. I really feel so bad. I hope God can forgive me.


So are you saying that the mountains of corroborating evidence gathered over the past 150 years, that all conclusively support Darwinism beyond any rational doubt, are a figment of everyone's imagination?

Wow – that's some global conspiracy theory you've got going there.

I know about global warming but i did not know that Darwin's story is global. Today scientists found the fabricated fossils and skulls already done by Darwinian guys to prove the story. If you need i can quote the news for you. Today fossils in Kenya, that belongs to two million years ago and exactly the same bone structure as we have today. Please do not try to fool the readers. It is not worth it. Truth has a habit; it always comes out.

Other Comments by chamber

34. Comment #32482 by edge100 on April 17, 2007 at 6:39 am

Quotation#1
•If you think of DNA as the cell's library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of the library, one kind of RNA checks out information from the DNA to line up left handed amino acids in the precise order for a particular protein.
•The amino acids are then linked together by a "molecular machine" made of another kind of RNA and several proteins. Each cell has many kinds of molecular machines.
Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor, each of the cell's machines is more evidence for an intelligent Creator.

No, no, and again no. This is the centuries-old Watchmaker Argument, and it is (still) invalid. Here's why (for the second time in this thread):

You know that all machines (let's say, the computer on which I'm typing this) were created by humans. Why is this a rational statement? Because you know (a) humans exist and (b) humans are capable of making computers.

Now, let's rexamine this using your example.

1. "If you think of DNA as the cell's library, and RNA as a book that can be checked out of the library, one kind of RNA checks out information from the DNA to line up left handed amino acids in the precise order for a particular protein."

- This is a decent analogy, although not perfect. But the details are not important here.

2. "The amino acids are then linked together by a "molecular machine" made of another kind of RNA and several proteins. Each cell has many kinds of molecular machines."

- Amino acids are linked together through the formation of peptide bonds, which occurs at the ribosome. This process requires (a) the mRNA transcript, (b) ribosomal proteins, (c) transfer RNAs (tRNAs), which bind to free amino acids and facilitate their assembly into larger proteins.

To this point, I'm in total agreement with you. The ribosome is very much a "machine".

3. "Because no machine exists that did not have an intelligent inventor, each of the cell's machines is more evidence for an intelligent Creator."

- Unfortunately, the argument falls apart right here. Let's look at the analogy with my original example (the computer).

We know that humans exist and that they can create computers. Thus, it is logical to conclude that a given computer is likely a human creation, although we cannot exclude the possibility that the computer may have formed spontaneously. But, given the proven existence of a creator, it is far more likely that the computer was manually created.

We cannot make the same statement about the ribosome, because we are missing BOTH pieces of critical information. First, we have not yet established that a putative creator exists. Second, even if we accept that such a creator exists, we have not established that it is ABLE to make ribosomes.

We certainly cannot use the 'Watchmaker Argument' to prove the existence of a creator, because in making the argument, we have presupposed that such a creator exists. It is a circular argument, par excellence.

Other Comments by edge100

35. Comment #32490 by edge100 on April 17, 2007 at 6:50 am

Information never develops apart from intelligence, yet cells contain huge amounts of information. I believe this is the most important single evidence that life came from the mind of an intelligent Creator rather than from dumb chemicals.

One could take two approaches on this one.

First, this is the Watchmaker Argument yet again. I think I (and others) have done enough to show the logical fallacy at work, so I'm going to leave this approach alone and direct you to my other posts.

For my second argument, I'm going to do something unheard of: I'm going to assume you are correct (I would ask you to do likewise; perspective may help). So let's ignore the circular arguments, and assume that life (or language, or whatever you'd like) is too complex to have arisen by chance, and must have been created. I will also ignore the blatently obvious point that "complexity" is entirely relative, and that we have no idea how "complex" we really are. We'll also ignore the "ultimate 747" argument that a god capable of creating such a complex universe must be exponentially more complex in-turn (thus simply delaying the inevitable acceptance that "complexity" can simply arise de novo). Yes, I will ignore all of this and just
assume you are right.

So, assuming that (a) life is "complex" (as measured on some imaginary scale of absolute complexity) and (b) the only possible explanation for this complexity is the existence of an even more complex creator (to which, it would appear, your doctrine that complex things must have been 'created' does not apply), there is, it would appear, only one question left to answer:

Which creator?

Other Comments by edge100

36. Comment #32498 by Deimos on April 17, 2007 at 7:26 am

Dear Chamber,

You are indoctrinated.
You are taught the Universe is created.
You are taught that the Egoism of the Jews.
You are taught that there is a Creator.

But there is destruction in the Universe. Therefore your Ego, err... I mean God is a Destroyer.

Is not this Satan?

Other Comments by Deimos

37. Comment #32613 by Dreamer's Dilemma on April 17, 2007 at 3:25 pm

So what if the ragheads ban Jeannie?

I hope they ban "Bewitched" too. The Muslims don't deserve to see the likes of Barbara Eden and Elizabeth Montgomery gracing their TV screens.

Other Comments by Dreamer's Dilemma

38. Comment #32691 by chamber on April 18, 2007 at 3:22 am

34. Comment #32482 by edge100 on April 17, 2007 at 6:39 am


We know that humans exist and that they can create computers. Thus, it is logical to conclude that a given computer is likely a human creation, although we cannot exclude the possibility that the computer may have formed spontaneously. But, given the proven existence of a creator, it is far more likely that the computer was manually created.


Dear edge,
First read entire article on the web page http://livingdinos.com/byebyevolution
This is the article I have ever read that explains God's creation scientifically. If you still do not get it, you can use your logic then to find the truth.

As for computers, you believe that computers have a builder because that makes sense and you see the computer assembler. With the same logic, how come you don't believe that computer like organism, thousands of creatures, animals plants, and human beings have no builder/creator? Just because we cannot see God now with our limited conceptions and eyes that can see the things in only three dimensions while there are 4th, 5th, 6th dimensions exist. I can't see something that does not mean that it does not exist. I don't see my mind but I know that I have it. You cannot judge creation with your eyes but you can figure out with your logic and reason.

Other Comments by chamber

39. Comment #32692 by chamber on April 18, 2007 at 3:24 am

So, assuming that (a) life is "complex" (as measured on some imaginary scale of absolute complexity) and (b) the only possible explanation for this complexity is the existence of an even more complex creator (to which, it would appear, your doctrine that complex things must have been 'created' does not apply), there is, it would appear, only one question left to answer:

Which creator?

Hi there again,
To Edge
For the sake of better understanding, I can rephrase your question the creation is sp perfect and well-designed which requires a perfect designer, then, who is the designer of designer? If you check the trains, cars are connected to each other and one car is pulling the one behind him. It goes on like until it comes to the car, the locomotive! Who is pulling it?

Creation cannot be the same kind with the creator. Now there is a palace designed very well and the question is we accept everything this palace like world cannot come into existence by itself, but who is the father and mother of the king? This is very simple and illogical thinking? If we attribute everything to prior cause – cause and effect for creation- then there will be a never –ending chain of creators. God is unique as a creator who is self-subsistent and does need a creator to exist just because creatures need a creator. This is a false approach. We never say a computer is by another by another computer.

God does not need causes and effects to create but God created causes and effects just for us, human beings, to understand his creation. Think about what would happen if there were no rain but still flowers had blossomed, vegetables and fruits were still grown? Causes and effects are the curtain of God's act on the earth , and as a requirement of test. The problem is that we are thinking with worldly conceptions and limited perceptions about God. So we are allowing ourselves to get drown in the swamp of illogical assumptions and questions.

Other Comments by chamber

40. Comment #32693 by chamber on April 18, 2007 at 3:26 am

36. Comment #32498 by Deimos on April 17, 2007 at 7:26 am
Dear Chamber,
You are indoctrinated.
You are taught the Universe is created.
You are taught that the Egoism of the Jews.
You are taught that there is a Creator.
But there is destruction in the Universe. Therefore your Ego, err... I mean God is a Destroyer.Is not this Satan?

Hi there

I am not adamant neither are logical people. We are still in the circle of logic to get answer from evolution story. Ego is given to us to Find God not to be arrogant and try to falsify creation of God. Creation cannot be thought bit it was seen, felt and acknowledged through our logic and reason. If you can think objectively, there is no way that you will not see God. Destruction lays in atheism. You know why? It is because it is like a poison that can influence people's mind otherwise. I am sure that I would like to invite all atheist readers to read my comments – get the print out and think about it in an open place objectively. Discuss it with yourself, your logic and make decision. I am not trying to impose anything. But give it a try. Please just think it over.

Other Comments by chamber

41. Comment #32716 by edge100 on April 18, 2007 at 4:59 am

So we are allowing ourselves to get drown in the swamp of illogical assumptions and questions.

Ok, chamber. You win. I've been wrong all along. Personal incredulity and circular reasoning IS a valid reason to believe in something. Simply defining god as outside of time and space is good enough for me; doing so with the physical universe, despite being based on the same standards, is just silly. How could I have missed it? Of course god exists outside of creation; we've just declared it.

Now, with all that in mind (and thank you for freeing me from the shackles of logical discourse), can you please direct me to the correct god to worship? It seems they all pretty much fit our (now mutual, it would seem) understanding of what a god has to be. How to choose? How...to...choose?

Should I be a Christian? A Muslim? A Jew? Perhaps I should worship Ra, or Zeus? The Flying Spaghetti Monster scares me (plus I hate meatballs), so that one's out. I've heard there are some really wicked-cool gods on some of those South Pacific islands. Maybe I should take a trip? I could use the tan. I really like Indian food; perhaps Hinduism or Sikhism would suit me?

Just point me in the right direction, and I'll be on my way. I'm sure you have some data suggesting that your particular god is the true god, and suggesting that everyone else is mistaken, right?

Other Comments by edge100

42. Comment #32719 by Underworld on April 18, 2007 at 5:09 am

You just don't get it do you chamber!!

Other Comments by Underworld

43. Comment #32721 by edge100 on April 18, 2007 at 5:12 am

With the same logic, how come you don't believe that computer like organism, thousands of creatures, animals plants, and human beings have no builder/creator?

Because there is no evidence that such a creator exists, and has the ability to create life. You cannot presuppose the existence of X to prove that X exists.

I can't see something that does not mean that it does not exist.

Quite right; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Say, I feel like having some tea. Anyone know of a good celestial teapot I could use?

Of course, if something WERE absent, we would expect to see no evidence of its existence. Perhaps we should be looking for things that SHOULD exist, if god were real; perhaps for evidence of, say, the success of intercessory prayer?

Other Comments by edge100

44. Comment #33053 by chamber on April 19, 2007 at 4:30 am

Comment #32716 by edge100 on April 18, 2007 at 4:59 am
So we are allowing ourselves to get drown in the swamp of illogical assumptions and questions.
Ok, chamber. You win. I've been wrong all along. Personal incredulity and circular reasoning IS a valid reason to believe in something. Simply defining god as outside of time and space is good enough for me; doing so with the physical universe, despite being based on the same standards, is just silly. How could I have missed it? Of course god exists outside of creation; we've just declared it.

Now, with all that in mind (and thank you for freeing me from the shackles of logical discourse), can you please direct me to the correct god to worship? It seems they all pretty much fit our (now mutual, it would seem) understanding of what a god has to be. How to choose? How...to...choose?

Should I be a Christian? A Muslim? A Jew? Perhaps I should worship Ra, or Zeus? The Flying Spaghetti Monster scares me (plus I hate meatballs), so that one's out. I've heard there are some really wicked-cool gods on some of those South Pacific islands. Maybe I should take a trip? I could use the tan. I really like Indian food; perhaps Hinduism or Sikhism would suit me?

Just point me in the right direction, and I'll be on my way. I'm sure you have some data suggesting that your particular god is the true god, and suggesting that everyone else is mistaken, right?

Chamber writes,
Now you are using reverse psychology to get somewhere. First, choosing a religion comes later. First step you have be able to see God in His perfect design. Mocking religions will not take you anywhere. I pointed direction already through my comments but I think you missed it otherwise I wouldn't have a comment like this, would I? The problem is you don't come to understand what I write since I address directly to yopur logic and reason. So what I get is either swearing or funny and mocking comments since you cannot answer logically. That's all right. If you insist staying in the swamp with the selfish genes and blind watchmaker, I can't push you.

Other Comments by chamber

45. Comment #33055 by chamber on April 19, 2007 at 4:31 am

42. Comment #32719 by Underworld on April 18, 2007 at 5:09 am
You just don't get it do you chamber!!

Chamber writes,
I got it very well and I responded it very well? What about you? Are you able to understand my comments or you will ask help from Dawkins? Or Dawkins wrote it to me already under another name? Anyway, Take it easy. And try to understand what I wrote with logical analogies?

Other Comments by chamber

46. Comment #33056 by chamber on April 19, 2007 at 4:34 am

43. Comment #32721 by edge100 on April 18, 2007 at 5:12 am

Chamber says
With the same logic, how come you don't believe that computer like organism, thousands of creatures, animals plants, and human beings have no builder/creator?

Edge says
Because there is no evidence that such a creator exists, and has the ability to create life. You cannot presuppose the existence of X to prove that X exists.

Chamber responses
If there is an X then there should be an X maker. Something comes into existence if somebody gets involve in. Nothing happens if there is nothing. Now there thousands of complex creations with ultimate organization, conscious, intuitions, mutual cooperation, which all require a determined and wise design and control.
I hope you are not relative of Bertrand Russell. A simple analogy. You go to a pharmacy, and pharmacist said you have to wait for million years to make the medicine because they use evolution method to get it. They put one ingredient on the floor, and then that ingredient, eventually through chances and luck, will come into existence. You say how come specific and certain amounts of ingredients will mix to make my medicine, and the pharmacist says,' don't worry luck and chances will do it.' You will be leaving the pharmacy swearing on the way to another pharmacy. Now let's get back to reality. This world is a huge Pharmacy with thousand of medicine like animals and plants; all kind of fish, squid, turtle, octopus, … and land animals, tigers, snakes, cockroaches, bats, peacocks, eagles, bees, and finally human beings, so if there is pharmacy full of medicines and each of which requires specific ingredients and certain portions, there must be a pharmacist. We cannot imagine that all medicines came into existence by chances or luck which is totally a chaotic and illogical imagination, delusion, illusion, whatever you call it.

Chamber says,
If I can't see something that does not mean that it does not exist.
Edge says
Quite right; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Say, I feel like having some tea. Anyone know of a good celestial teapot I could use?

Of course, if something WERE absent, we would expect to see no evidence of its existence. Perhaps we should be looking for things that SHOULD exist, if god were real; perhaps for evidence of, say, the success of intercessory prayer?

Chamber responses
Please read my response above. If you still cannot the pharmacist in our big pharmacy, then assume that all animals, plants, human beings, Darwin and his story, Dawkins along with his books do not exist. They are all delusion. How does it sound? Does it make sense to you?

Other Comments by chamber

47. Comment #33071 by Underworld on April 19, 2007 at 5:04 am

Chamber writes,
I got it very well and I responded it very well? What about you? Are you able to understand my comments or you will ask help from Dawkins? Or Dawkins wrote it to me already under another name? Anyway, Take it easy. And try to understand what I wrote with logical analogies?

Your responses certainly don't demonstrated that you 'got it very well'. I can understand clear logic as demonstrated by edge100; unfortunately for you I can also see the flawed logic in your 'logical analogies'.

You state that 'if there is an X then there should be an X maker' - here you are presupposing an X maker which leads to the circular arguments that you present.

Either you can't see it or you won't, it's as simple as that!

Other Comments by Underworld

48. Comment #33397 by chamber on April 20, 2007 at 2:43 am

Your responses certainly don't demonstrated that you 'got it very well'. I can understand clear logic as demonstrated by edge100; unfortunately for you I can also see the flawed logic in your 'logical analogies'

Definations,
Logic; A set of sensible and correct reasons or reasonable thinking.
From American dictionary.

Nonsense: ideas, opinions, statements, etc, that are not true or stupid.
From American dictionary.

Now 400 hundred thousand of species – animals and plants came from a worm. Lovely peacocks, squids, ants, eagles, with amazing perfect body parts, human beings and our soul? Soul? Hold on please, Soul is not from the worms? It might be another sieve or something or we can just deny it if we cannot fix it.

God created all the creations with his ultimate wisdom and knowledge thinking about all the needs of each creature and arranging all cooperation and help between the creatures. Just think about the cooperation between sun – it gives light and heat- and animals, plants and human beings. If we attribute a creator then we don't need to figure out a lot of illogical stories like there was a Gene = it was just there and it mutated and mutated and evolved and evolved and there you go 400 thousand animals and plants. came out.

So which one is nonsense? Let reason and logic and reasonable and logical reader judge about it.

Other Comments by chamber

49. Comment #33405 by Underworld on April 20, 2007 at 3:13 am

'If we attribute a creator then we don't need to figure out...' etc.

This is lazy thinking. If you were to actually read and inform yourself about the theory of evolution instead of just saying 'everything came from a worm', you would see that it provides much more satisfying reasons for the way the world is than just 'god did it'.

I would suggest Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene' as a good starting point.

Regards.

Other Comments by Underworld

50. Comment #33814 by chamber on April 22, 2007 at 1:39 am

'If we attribute a creator then we don't need to figure out...' etc.

This is lazy thinking. If you were to actually read and inform yourself about the theory of evolution instead of just saying 'everything came from a worm', you would see that it provides much more satisfying reasons for the way the world is than just 'god did it'.

I would suggest Dawkins' 'The Selfish Gene' as a good starting point.

Regards.

Chamber says

Non_lazy thinking(!)
Once upon a time there were genes that poppet out of nowhere. They were just there. Nobody knew how? Then genes when they were playing in a warm pond, one of them smart selfish gene found a cell by chance and then they all hopped in that cell then, through wisdow, knowledge and power( in an unconcious gene?) of blindwatcmaker with assistance of luck and chances started mutating again and again. Sometimes since it was luck involved some results of mutations were terrible. Fishes came out with no eyes or some more terrrible monster like creatures. Then, when it comes to making them alive, the blindwatcmaker stopped. It couldn't make them move. They needed some kind of power to get them moving. They called Darwin and Dawkins but they cannot figure out anyhting. They are still thinking... and our fable story never ends because it started by chance.

Logical and scientifical thinking.

God created this world like a huge ship goin around the sun and and itself and created all servant like animals seperately and place them in this ship like our earth. HE created factory like soil so that diffrents plants and fruits can be grown in it. And very last time, God created the resident of the earth, the passenger of the ship.

Let the logical readers judge which one does make sense?

Other Comments by chamber