How many of you believe in God?

<p>Superior Child24 -- Taoism, the way I understand it, is basically forgetting everything society has ever taught you and starting your belief from scratch. It's about contrast and balance. Think the Ying Yang, black vs. white. It's pretty difficult to explain but I think it's basically just finding peace within yourself and your relationship with the world, thus it's different for different people. </p>

<p>In my opinion it's similar to Buddhism in that it's very tolerant of other lifestyles. Case in point, if you were a Taoist or Buddhist you probably wouldn't be one of the people arguing for evolution or religion -- you'd be accepting that other people have different beliefs from you -- however nonsensical their beliefs may seem to you.</p>

<p>I believe in God. I think that it's important to remember that as a Christian you don't need to subscribe to a conservative viewpoint. You can, but there are other interpretations of Christianity. </p>

<p>I'd just like to clarify that this post is not meant to be an attack conservative Christians. More, it is meant to remind people that there are multiple interpretations of Christianity. It seems as if other posters have been turned off by Christianity because they do not agree with Christian Conservatives.</p>

<p>I go to a Protestant church, and I could say I'm Christian because of that. While I do believe in God because of where I am right now, I'm not so sure about everything in Bible...if God created the Universe and most likely there are other lifeforms out there, why is His Son a human?</p>

<p>Because humans were the ones who screwed up perfection and had to leave Eden.</p>

<p>Yes I believe in God!!! Most indeed!</p>

<p>but weren't humans living outside of Eden already....who else did Cane and Abel marry?</p>

<p>just wondering</p>

<p>and aren't there a couple of varying versions of Creation in Genesis? </p>

<p>What bugs me about certain sects of various religions is that the followers believe the rest of us are bad people, that we will go to *&^% if we aren't saved.</p>

<p>I ask the question- are Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Junior, George Washington, St. Joan, Pope John Paull II, AAbraham Lincoln, - were are they? The answer I get tells me a lot.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but weren't humans living outside of Eden already....who else did Cane and Abel marry?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't pay much attention in catechism classes, but I had always thought that they married their sisters since Adam and Eve's family was the only one in existence at that time.</p>

<p>Cain and Abel married their own sisters. That's what I remembered in the bible. Who else is there to marry during there time? Heck, they never mention about anything about the Asians in the Bible. Ha ha that's funny. Maybe the Asians didn't exist during the Christianity time. xD How sad. :O!</p>

<p>I believe that anyone who wants to believe in ID is welcome to. I am very angry that is included in the biology class room however. Biology class is a science class. It is not a political/human rights playground. Scientific theories should be taught. ID should be taught in religion class.</p>

<p>Really, the weakest point about ID is that they presume the chance of everything working out the way it did is very slim. If you read my blog, you will see a proof that if as many ID proponents say, it is near impossible, everyother path would be near impossible. Humans are nothing special. There is nothing unique about you, or me, or anyone else here. Don't incite religious fallacies into todays youth, or you will only propagate more ignorance.</p>

<p>No pseudogenes yet..I guess I win, thesloc. It's good to see that this thread has returned to its original topic, which I find much more appealing.</p>

<p>Anyway, I categorically cannot accept the notion that there is an omnipotent force, which I can never escape, that creates regulations for behavior. I see no reason to trust God's will, whatever it may be, as "good." The way I see it, the only thing he's got on me is a ****load of power. As we all know, though, might does not make right. Rather than be the puppet of some all-powerful force, I would like to make my own judgments, to be a free individual. I could never live with myself if I believed in God.</p>

<p>lol! I don't get it: God tells us not to marry family but he forces the "first people" to.</p>

<p>Sneakiie, I don't know where you manage to come up with a different smiley for every post. That is just amazing in my eyes. Do you make them up as you go?</p>

<p>Well said, sagar_indurkhya. Believe whatever you want to, but keep science and religion separate.</p>

<p>I think they have found a "God Gene" in the brain. Scientists believed that its purpose was originally for ancient humans when they needed something in common to stick together in order to survive. I still believe in God though... there are just too many unexplained things in my mind, none of which are about evolution.</p>

<p>P.S. This is my 1,700 post. Pretty sad, isn't it?</p>

<p>LOL! :] Superior Child, if you watch Anime and Anime RP you will be able to make different faces! :P! ^_^ I might make some of them up but they might already been used before so I don't really know. :P Ha ha yea during Christianity time there might be [coughs]incest[coughs]. Who knows I mimght be wrong so don't start yelling at me saying "Oh my gosh! You didn't just say that! Hope you go to hell, SNEAKiiE!" --; I really believed they married their sisters because that's what the bible said. Kind of nasty but oh well. :] Who else are they going to be marry? The "population" was very low because Adam and Eve's family were the only ones living. The story went something like this. After Cain killed Abel [ oO; If I got the two brothers messed up sorry], he was to leave his family so he brought his sister along with him whom he married. >>;;;; So that's how the population started and people started ummm yea and the population started to increase because of Cain who migrated different places. >] I kind of curious if there was any Asians mention in the Bible. >P Maybe the new bible. --; People who wrote the bible just kept on adding some stuff that's why. Ha ha they forgot about the Asian people. XD</p>

<p>People who attribute unexplained phenomena to God have a pretty long track record of being wrong. Saying "God did it" is just too easy, and it defeats the purpose of science, which is a search for truth. I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said, "Science is the record of dead religions."</p>

<p>Heh Mao Chong [o.o God I can't spell that man's name" said "Religions are poisonous." xD</p>

<p>
[quote]
If this is so, then apparently, God is Hell-bent on tricking us into thinking evolution is true. Not only does this call God's sanity into question, but we also must ask why he would create all this evidence for evolution, while simultaneously providing evidence that "refutes" it. Your God is an idiot.

[/quote]

I think God wants to keep us guessing. What is the point of having faith if you can prove something beyond a shadow of doubt?</p>

<p>God exists outside Space & Time so trying to put him into a 4-dimensional framework is useless.</p>

<p>science says PSEUDOGENES have no purpose..but they do(they influence)....part of design.If they had no purpose..natural selection would have phased them out millions of years ago...right?</p>

<p>About RNA:</p>

<p>Now that I bothered to read through talkorigins.org, I'm only more strengthened in my resolve that certain evolutionary theories, are indeed, ridiculous ponce.</p>

<p>
[quote]
DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication [Jeffares et al, 1998; Pool et al, 1998; Leipe et al, 1999]. The RNA itself could have had simpler precursors, such as peptide nucleic acids [Böhler et al, 1995]

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Could and likely are not an acceptability. We want, can and is - kapische?</p>

<p>
[quote]
A deoxyribozyme can both catalyze its own replication and function to cleave RNA -- all without any protein enzymes [Levy and Ellington, 2003].

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What sources suggest that deoxyribozyme is the specific trigger of such replication patterns and not any other? If deoxyribozyme has been isolated as the prominent catalyst of the evolutionary trigger mechanism, I would like to see concrete evidence.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Claim CA005.1:
Charles Darwin was himself a racist, referring to native Africans and Australians, for example, as savages. </p>

<p>Virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed negroes as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most; he vehemently opposed slavery [Darwin, 1839], and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And a serious matters this is. What a nice way to overlook the agenda - downplay Darwin's guiltiness by comparing his rotten values to the rank injustice of his own civilisation. Though it may be true, "measuring" one's degree of racism (is that even possible?) in direct correlation to the cultural opinions of the fellow men of that era, reduces the scientific insight of this website to ashes. That is why if Darwin opposed slavery, it was probably because he endured personal nightmares about the negro race becoming rampant fixtures of his time, thereby increasing the possibility of a mixed race - a backward move in his case. Perhaps this is something Hitler would identify with.</p>

<p>"The break between man in a more civilised state, as we hope, even than the caucasion, and some ape as low as baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
- Charles Darwin, The Descent Of Man, 2nd. ed., New York: A. L Burt Co,</p>

<p>The propensity to alike negro men to gorillas obviously devalues the scientific merit and achievements of Darwin - a fallen man, in my opinion. You might also like to know that Darwin had never undergone a formal education in biology - so long for diploma mills.</p>

<p>Also, Darwin was aware that his theories faced a lot of problems. The difficulties in explaining fossil records, complex organs of living things that could not possibly be explained by coincidence, i.e, the eye, and the instincts of living beings. Darwin hoped that these difficulties would be overcome but that didn't stop him from coming up with a number of very inadequate explanations for some:</p>

<p>"On reading The Origin of Species, I found that Darwin was much less sure himself than he is often represented to be; the chapter entitled, "Difficulties of the Theory" for example, shows considerable self-doubt. As a physicist, I was particularly intrigued by his comments on how the eye would have arisen."
- H. S Lipson, A Physicist's View of Darwin's Theory, Evolution Trends in Plants, Vol 2, No. 1</p>

<p>
[quote]
The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not people's opinions.

[/quote]

This is the height of mediocrity - it is a poor attempt to dilute racial stigma. If I had a personal vendetta against a given subject, there would be more than a likely probability that I would assimilate and throw this negativity into the groundwork - even refraining from being proactive in this instance, would change the foundation of my subject to some extent.</p>

<p>Considering this is a man who fathered evolution, and also the fact that his work was an evidence of at least some racial prejudice, it is a disgusting reveal into the much hyped-up ******** perpetuated by many evolutionists, under the sickening guise of reason. Given such acclaimed and respected status, Darwin's intelligence should have prevented him from making such tragic speculations regarding the racial ladder. From here, it's plain to see Darwin is on a propaganda ride.</p>

<p>As reiterated, many scientists, do indeed, use farcical theories and lunatic theologies, funded by their own lack of cultural respect, to pave the way for the next heatwave of scientifical anarchy:</p>

<p>"Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixture of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin."
- Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York.</p>

<p>Conclusion: If I was ever convinced about the fallacy of bogus evolutionary theories, I am more so now. I believe that variance within a species is attainable - indeed, one can see this happening before our very eyes, but I draw the line at the merest mention that one species developed into another.Not only do I have time limitations, but I doubt we will ever achieve mutual understanding. We will only end up spiralling further into dissension and discord. However, I do have to say this: I apologise for creating a breeding ground of impertinence and secretly commiting to shove ten-inch needles in a voodoo doll of your liking.</p>

<p>Rest assured this was not a competition, but a mere exchange of beliefs, in which mine remain intact.</p>

<p>Holy $4!+! o.o Gee thesloc, you've been doing your resesarch! xD</p>

<p>Just curious. If there is a God, how come God doesn't have a wife? o_o; I mean why isn't there a "God and Goddess" :] Sometimes I wonder if oo;;; God is a sextist or something. I think I'm plain wrong. Or is it the only main reason there is just God, could God be umm....gay? That is why there is no Goddess? ;D Because I know for sure that man can't live without woman or woman living without man unless they are homosexuals. ^^;;; Someone answer my question thanks!</p>

<p>SNEakers:
"I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, I am the First and I am the Last."</p>

<p>God always was and always will be, our minds are limited and we cannot fully explain or understand that, the concept of omnipresence is just too much for our grey matter to process or comprehend.</p>

<p>;-; Damn I think there should be a Goddess! >O Ok lol guess my nickname is going to be SNEAKERS. XD!</p>