Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), The Last Prophet of God

That's funny. Our task was to get the of the Baath regime. Guess what isn't there any more?

Now we're trying to keep the Iranian-backed Shiites from murdering the Syrian-backed Sunni's -- and vice-versa.

I don't know what it is about Islam that makes people want to murder each other -- even their fellow Muslims.

It's a damned shame you people can't seem to be more civilized.

 

do you think everybody can afford those cars? did you forget the poor?

So even without the Quran you can't afford it (unless you are rich) so basically don't matter....I know Bill Gates can afford it

 

So, in Islam, can everyone afford a camel?

 

This is actually a good point ... I know in some Christian countries a horse
is consider like a Mercedes.

Most people in Japan can afford a car though and that's without the help
of the Koran. Do you want the Japanese to convert and become less advanced
and go into poverty ?

Or do you think that the Japanese could teach Islam a few things ?

 

if you got the money then yeah...but they don't cost millions of dollars lol...If I lived in the desert I would surely use a camel instead of a car

 

lol, comparing a race with religion lol...what about China? Indonesia?

 

The point was that the Koran or the Bible was not used nor needed
by the Japanese to outsmart others.

 

What a crazy thread. Someone asks if a global flood really happened, and I go to town on that ridiculous peice of mythology, and I seem to be the only sane person in a mass of the mentally ill.

Yet you get a muslim saying that his mythology is real, and suddenly everyone is a a professional mythology buster.

Don't be hypocritical here people. Allah is just as imaginary as Elohim is just imaginary as Jehovah is just as imaginary as Zeus.

 

You never told me how old the ice cube is. The mentally ill are unaware that the things they believe are silly. Christians are perfectly aware that a flood seems outrageous and that it's difficult to understand how such a thing would be possible. No Christian is going to pretend that turning water into wine is normal. You seem to think that it's possible to date ice cubes. That's insane.

It's also the insane person that thinks they're the only sane one.

Smoke pot much?

 

Can't stand cigarettes let alone Pot. I don't even drink alcohol. And guess what, I do that for smart reasons rather than religious ones!

But the pathetic attempt at mockery aside, using a straw man depiction of how science works is just typical of creationists. 'Ice cube' - yeah, ice cubes are exactly the same as several kilometers of ice. </sarcasm>

I'm glad you realize water turning into wine is a silly idea, and I am glad you can see that a global flood is outrageous. How about you start living up to those realizations, and start justifying how they could be possible rather than just dismissing all of the overwhelming evidence against them?

Seriously: Look at this list: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

How do you address problems so thorough? Well I know how it is done, it is with carefully placed double think.

How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark ( Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup. Since there were likely more animals to load, the time pressures would have been even worse.

Manpower for feeding, watering, etc. How did a crew of eight manage a menagerie larger and more diverse than that found in zoos requiring many times that many employees? Woodmorappe claims that eight people could care for 16000 animals, but he makes many unrealistic and invalid assumptions. Here are a few things he didn't take into account:

* Feeding the animals would take much longer if the food was in containers to protect it from pests.
* Many animals would have to be hand-fed.
* Watering several animals at once via troughs would not work aboard a ship. The water would be sloshed out by the ship's roll.
* Many animals, in such an artificial environment, would have required additional special care. For example, all of the hoofed animals would need to have their hooves trimmed several times during the year. [Batten, 1976, pp. 39-42]
* Not all manure could be simply pushed overboard; a third of it at least would have to be carried up at least one deck.
* Corpses of the dead animals would have to be removed regularly.
* Animals can't be expected to run laps and return to their cages without a lot of human supervision.


I can bring up a new criticism for the global flood on every post if you want. You haven't adequately demonstrated the problems with any one of them yet. You have mearly assumed that one or two of them have made faulty assumptions. Yet you have failed to demonstrate that your assumptions are based in reality.

Stop assuming that others make assumptions, and start providing the evidence (like scientists do).

 

Christians don't smoke/drink for religious reasons?

I'm still waiting for evidence to prove the flood couldn't happen.

I'm glad we can all agree that you're not a scientist.

There were 15764 animals? That's facinating that scientists know exactly how many animals were needed at the time of the flood so that the diversity that results from interbreeding/environmental variations would lead to exactly the number of species we have today.

What's even more fascinating is that they can come up with that number without knowing exactly how many years has passed since the flood. And a miracle considering we don't even know how all of the different creatures that are alive today.

You are a freakin genious!

If you want to enlighten us with your stupid in more than one thread, be my guest. Although I don't think the OPs will be that happy about it.

 

Ummm....what is this thread about again? Seems to have a mixture of arks, cars, camels, pot....what next? I know... This is what's missing:



Col

 

Didn't say christians specifically. But I know some religions (like mormons) do.

Denial. A great way to remain certain you are right.

My Degree in molecular biology says otherwise.

The line quite clearly says 'at least', which is not an exact number at all. The following section (which you still refuse to look at) goes into details. Here, let me continue to spoon feed you information which you will continue to ignore in an effort to maintain your arrogant ignorance:

What is a kind? Creationists themselves can't decide on an answer to this question; they propose criteria ranging from species to order, and I have even seen an entire kingdom (bacteria) suggested as a single kind. Woodmorappe (p. 5-7) compromises by using genus as a kind. However, on the ark "kind" must have meant something closer to species for three reasons:

* For purposes of naming animals, the people who live among them distinguish between them (that is, give them different names) at roughly the species level. [Gould, 1980]
* The Biblical "kind," according to most interpretations, implies reproductive separateness. On the ark, the purpose of gathering different kinds was to preserve them by later reproduction. Species, by definition, is the level at which animals are reproductively distinct.
* The Flood, according to models, was fairly recent. There simply wouldn't have been time enough to accumulate the number of mutations necessary for the diversity of species we see within many genera today.

What kinds were aboard the ark? Woodmorappe and Whitcomb & Morris arbitrarily exclude all animals except mammals, birds, and reptiles. However, many other animals, particularly land arthropods, must also have been on the ark for two reasons:

* The Bible says so. Gen. 7:8 puts on the ark all creatures that move along the ground, with no further qualifications. Lev. 11:42 includes arthropods (creatures that "walk on many feet") in such a category.
* They couldn't survive outside. Gen. 7:21-23 says every land creature not aboard the ark perished. And indeed, not one insect species in a thousand could survive for half a year on the vegetation mats proposed by some creationists. Most other land arthropods, snails, slugs, earthworms, etc. would also have to be on the ark to survive.

So yes, based on our knowledge of biology (something theology graduates surprisingly lack), we know how many species there are *at least* (there are more than we know), and we know how many Genus, sub genus, fora, etc. So when you decide what a 'kind' is, then we know how many organisms (at a MINIMUM) must have been put on the ark. And if we are talking breeding species, then the number can be quite specific.

Interestingly though you talk about 'interbreeding' - something that can't be done between non-breeding animals. I mean, a horse can't breed with a dog. So its pretty hard to interbreed them.

but of course, you will probably just dismiss this all as an assumption made by science. An incredibly well studied, well documented assumption, which has been independently verified thousands of times over by hundreds of diffferent mechanisms. But you will ignore it, because it is contrary to your belief....your belief which comes from several lines out of a book of dubious origin.

Hooray for enforced ignorance, double think and denial!

Don't need to know how many are alive to day. All we need to work from is how many we know are 'at least' alive. So we are working with the minimum, and it is still too many. And it is irrelevent how long ago the flood was, because biology clearly indicates that evolution happens at a generational level, and is quite slow.

But don't take my word for it, take the word of the other 1 million molecular biologists on earth who re-demonstrate these facts every day.

Or just ignore it. What ever helps to maintain your self-perpetuated delusion.

 

vs.

My point exactly.

It's okay. There are people with computer science degrees that couldn't code their way out of a paper bag.

Think, smart guy. If you don't know how many creatures are alive today you can't possibly know the "minimum" (especially to some obviously bogus exact figure) that would be required to result in the diversity we see today.

From wolves to dogs it takes just a few generations. The mistake you're making is thinking that all diversity requires evolution. Your myopic view of the world stemming from your single minded degree would lead you to believe that dogs evolved from wolves over a huge spanse of time.

Like I said, you have yet to make an intelligent argument for anything.

Maybe you should take some logic courses. Broaden your horizons. Think a little.

 

Infidel! Your kitchen sink is haram!

 

I'll make this simple. As the embryo develops it goes through several stages, and in the beginning stages it looks exactly the same as an ape embryo - in fact it looks that way further than others - however other mammal embryos look the same at the very beginning stages, like tadpoles almost. It is the code that makes changes later on after these initial essential beginning of life instructions are carried out. Hence, we all look like leeches at one stage - horses, cows, people, apes, mammals in general.

We are not unique, and by any means we make things up about who we are and why we are here because the cold hard truth about the purpose of mankind is simply to procreate. That is the meaning of life. Well guess what - we won. Unfortunately our success has pretty much damned us and is our failure too we keep growing and growing and growing. There are already enough humans.

NEWSFLASH - WORLD OVERPOPULATED. So what have we left? We make things up to make us feel better, economies, wars, religions, ideologies, science, everything as far as this. Unless we plan to expand further than the bounds of earth, we will be nothing more than the species that sucked. It sucked all the resources, it sucked all the food, it sucked all the air, and it died gasping for more. At one point the economic principal of scarcity will doom us, as there will be nothing left to supply in food, billions will starve, and disease will spread from their rot. What will be left at the bitter end is up for you to imagine, but I see Soylent Green written all over the future.

 

how old are you? lol

 

OMG you are a complete moron.

If you can see 5 ducks. How many ducks are there on Earth?

I don't know exactly, but there are certainly at least 5.

Do you get it? Or still too thick?

 

What he is saying is that there are approximately... uh... well lets see... a few million different species of animals? Not to mention insects like ants, bees, and the like. Each with their own subspecies and sub-sub species. You can't evolve things that quickly overnight - therefore being able to fit EVERYTHING would be... impossible! You'd have to build an arc the size of... Japan! Even then it would probably be too small to sustain life for over a month.

Diversity takes more than a few thousand years, and assuming the earth is less than 100,000 years old (as some people claim) it would be impossible. Modern humans only began to expand en mass about 40,000 years ago - although we are a 150,000 - 300,000 year old biological technology.

 

Don't mess with me; I have underwear your age.