America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Look up the origins of monotheism. Freud was a coke head, right?

Yeah you seem to be right. Why werent we told about this. There is little to no information on it.

Oh fuc, this is blowing my mind as i am reading it. Their supreme god was MAZDA.

Oh lord please forgive me for making fun of the rice burners.

I am trying to see if Hinduism and Buddhism also have a link to it. So far nothing.

Then again neither of those believe in a supreme power or being.

Yes clearly judaism, christainity and islam, the monotheistic religions all came from there.

From a guy you were talking to on a cigar forum, who knew?

Apology accepted

He bores them to sleep, like rufies, then it's game on.

Who created the Creator?

Frankly, there is no evidence of evolution either. Evolution and mutations are mathematically impossible and the scientists know this. So, teaching evolution is wrong as well. Everything does point to intelligent design. There is no way we or anything evolved. We ADAPT but that is different. For man to evolve, the world would have to be billions and billions and billions years old and scientists have proved the world isn't old enough to support evolution on the scale that is taught in school. And, evolution can't even explain away metamorphosis - it defies evolution on all levels and clearly points to intelligent design.

Evolution in school shouldn't be taught without offering intelligent design as an option for "why we are here."

Actually I would be very interested in reading a research paper stating that evolution is not possible in 1.4 billion years give or take.

Chief... I mean this in the nicest way, but never do this. In a "discussion" it is rude, lazy and honestly poor debating skills to make a claim (however outrageous) and when asked for supporting evidence say "do your own research". I could simply say... "I looked and there is no evidence to support your claim, you're wrong". Or I could make my own outrageous claims "A lot of scientists believe that my **** created the world, and unless all your wives pleasure it, it will destroy the world.... want evidence? Oh... look it up, there's tons out there". If you've read something you think has merit to the discussion, bring it to the discussion. Otherwise you have nothing.


This is a problem. You can't say "intelligent design" without providing an agency. We have no evidence of the existence of an "intelligence" with that capability. So to then hitch your theory to something which you have no evidence exists... it's not a scientific method. You don't know WHAT did your creating, HOW it created, WHEN it created.... it isn't a theory... it isn't even an 8th grade newspaper article.


As I said before, you could completely disprove evolution. That doesn't prove creationism... it doesn't even bolster the evidence for creationism. Here's an explanation and some evidence for metamorphosis anyway, because I'm nice:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/


You made the claim, you do the research. Don't whine that no one is researching stuff. It isn't MY job to support your claims. It's my job to support MY claims.

Thank you Chief... I will attempt to address each one individually. However, on a global basis, when I said "Research" I meant actual research paper, from a peer reviewed journal (and please, don't use the "but there's an anti-creationism conspiracy and no research would be accepted!" If it's simply correct math, it would stand on its own).

Of all your links, this was the most cogent and interesting. He relies a bit on this "Borel's Law" which is an interesting thought experiment, but not actually real. However, to address the author's point, which was that there is a very low probability of forming a simple protein chain from nothing... he's right. There IS a very low probability. But he's neglecting a few things: 1 - Molecular interaction occurs at a very high rate (ie, throw a lot of molecules in proximity to each other, then there are a huge number of interactions occurring in a short time; 2 - we have no concept of molarity of the solutions, but when we talk about things at the molecular level, we're talking HUGE numbers. 1 mole of salt (NaCl) is 58 grams... not much, right? But 1 Mole is 10^23 molecules of the stuff. It makes probability much higher when you have the possibility of so many interactions. 3 - None of us (including the author) have any idea of the environment at the time, and whether it would aid or hinder molecular interactions... kind of makes the entire equation moot.


This isn't a research article, it's a review of someone elses work... and I don't think it's very well written. They don't actually provide any proof of something being impossible, given a time constraint... and their second point they actually refute themselves, but then decide to ignore their refutation. Their claim that the fossil record only shows discrete jumps is false, unless you want to define different stages of hominid "Discrete"... given the conditions required to even get a fossil, we're doing pretty good in that regard. There's nothing new added here.


This article actually refutes your first article. I'm not sure why you included it, or if you even read it. The article ends with the statement:
"Could we use this strategy to revive our probabilistic critique of evolution? Many proponents of Intelligent Design believe that we can. In the second part of this essay, I will show why they are wrong."


This article goes back to the first idea, that our chances of first life forms forming are very small.... the non-scientific estimation (by Carl Sagan, but still not scientifically estimated) was 1*10^340,000,000 . They think this is impossible. Again, when 50g of salt (0.11 lb) is 10^23 molecules... and we have an entire planet's worth of material to work with... (air molecules, oceans of water molecules... ) your probability becomes completely different. Is it hard still?? hell yes... is it improbable? hell yes... but is it going to happen eventually? yes. We don't even need to confine ourselves to this planet. Given a universe worth of matter, and that these interactions occur everywhere at all times, is it going to eventually turn into a simple life-form? Yes.



This last one is simply a bunch of mathematicians saying their dissatisfied with the probability. Again, no hard numbers are used.

The most fundamental problem any of these "mathematicians" are having with the probability is that they're missing the vast numbers we're dealing with.

We're looking at it from a single die roll. You shouldn't look at it as "what are the odds of life coming into being on THIS planet, over the course of a couple billion years?" You need to look at it as "what are the odds of life coming into being on ANY of the planets in the universe over their entire lifetime?" We're just the result of that happening, it didn't have to be this planet, there's nothing particular about it.

I don't think you're helping prove my point...

On a go forward basis, are we growing closer to the end of all things each day?

OK, Nancy Pelosi.

Perhaps I should phrase it differently. We currently have no evidence (zero, none, nada) that there is any agency with capabilities necessary for creationism.

The theory of evolution is based on your average natural laws, accepted genetics and biochem. If something doesn't fit, it is examined until one can come up with a known law or evidence to support it.

With creationism, you don't even know where your boundaries lie. You can't say that something fits or doesn't fit any laws or possibilities, since you can't even define what was accomplished. Do you see the problem? I mean, if we use "aliens" then at least we know we still have to follow laws of nature, but if you leave it open to also include "god" or "my large p3nis" or "the earth turtle" you don't know what natural laws are applicable and which aren't.