Very strong words by Netherland's politician Geert Wilders warning USA about Islam

Again you're missing the point. The topic is not about Christian crusades. First, what you wrote was not what I implied. You call today's Islam modern but does that mean the Quran became modern also? The people got modern with the technological advancements NOT Islam. This also affected the mentality. Otherwise, one would argue Islam is changing from time to time and is not a religion. It is as simple as that. You should be able to understand this.

Muslims believe in the second coming too. The experience will be beyond human mind. Again, you do not believe in God so it wouldn't matter if I tell explain to you the eternal experience foretold in the bible. The revelations is a good start though.

You see, when you try and put your opinion on a religion, judge by the book and the rules (core of the religion). You should also realize that Geert did not relate to historical Islamic Crusades in his speech. He used the Quran. In the new testament, there is absolutely nothing encouraging murder.
In the old testament, one of the 10 commandments was "You shall not murder". I am not proud of the Christian Crusades either. They had their reasons to fight but where they fighting in the name of God? Who ever kills does not belong to God. It is as simple as that.
How about a more modern example? George W Bush. He was a Christian and he lead your country downhill. He was the reason for the loss of thousands of lives (Americans and non-Americans). Does that mean we Christians should look up to him and argue he somewhat magically following his own interpretations of the bible?

You still insist to embarrass yourself ? The thing is I don't care if you want to falsely represent yourself as a Muslim here. It does show you are not a stable person. One day you are pretending to be an Atheist, another standing beside good ol' Christians and now Voila ! - a Muslim.

 

And you say I am missing the point. You respond to more than a thousand years of brutality and murder in the name of Christianity with some snide comment about George Bush, as if his war was a religious one? Grab a clue. The millions murdered during the dark ages were murdered IN THE NAME OF CHRISTIANITY. Obviously those people felt the command to kill was in the bible. Perhaps you are familiar with this old testament verse:

"You must not allow a witch to live."
Exodus 22:18

Are you now claiming these Americans were not Christians?

All your nonsensical rant is proving is that Christianity has evolved. One day in the not to distant future, there will be very few Christians that still do not believe in Evolution, or better said, believe in the creation story as told by the bible. That is evolution of a religion and it has been happening for a very long time.

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

According to the prophet Luke(you)? More heresy.

Money says I've spent more time studying the bible than you have spent breathing air on this planet. My religious beliefs are not your concern, as I don't spend my time shoving them down your throat. The only thing I ask is that you refer to me by my Muslim name, Mohammad Nasir al Din. I've mentioned my conversion to Islam, and that should be good enough for you. If it isn't I guess its something you are just going to have to live with.

By the way, I liked the stable person comment. Tell me again about the new dimension that will be created!

 

good points Obamanation.
I think western countries passed those critical times and get out of those shits but anyway must not forget it. Gradualy Muslim reach to this point too I guess. just see how much Muslims involved in terroristic actions and how many Muslim kill every day for that. people fed up with extremists and bored.

hi brother, welcome back! lol

so right I think.
in Europe under democracy any party could chose it's representative, then 5 percent of Muslim there voted to who? wich one of MPs an other authority in Europe are Muslim extremist?
I think Muslims in Europe accepted European values and also most of European accepted them.
six months ago I saw Germans voted for an Iranian Muslim guy as their superstar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutschland_sucht_den_Superstar

 

In the name of Christianity? Did Jesus taught us to fight or Murder? Did you ask yourself what were these Christian wars about? Christians HAVE the right like anyone else to defend themselves and restore their properties and that could involve killing if they're under threatening situations but that's a whole another position. Don't judge one side of the story.

Regarding your reference to the verse from Exodus, I would think you should direct it more to a Jewish person but little research will tell you this:

The word 'witch' was a seventeenth century choice, made at the time when pogroms against so-called witches were still in force, but the NIV translation is closer to the original, which was intended to authorizing the killing of those who continued to teach the animist rites. Taken along with many other commandments that enforce the power of the rulers, it means that the author of Exodus was prepared to justify any action to maintain the power of the priests and kings of Judah.

I am a Christian and I believe in Evolution to an extent. Humans did not originate by Evolution. That is simply impossible. The answer to the question of the origin of the first cell of life does not and will not exist.
You should also remember that you, as a pretending Muslim, should not believe in Evolution and stick to the Adam & Eve story

Good luck

 

A very nice post. Off late I see Muslims and Islam in general being attacked for no reason at all in this forum. Though I'm an atheist and do not agree with most of what Islam preaches, I believe as long as their actions/beliefs do not directly affect us it is none of our business to criticize their social practices, customs and religious beliefs.

 

agree with you about Helvetii's post

not gree with you! have to read more posts I think.

 

LoL. You haven't the slightest clue do you. Go read up on the Inquisition, and then explain to me the justification for the other side.

Surprise surprise. Blame the Jews. If you think those people in the Eastern US subjecting women to cruel and unusually painful deaths had anything to do with the Jews, there is no point in talking to you.

As many here have mentioned to you, human evolution is a as much fact as is the theory of gravity. Our forefathers actually demonstrated Darwin's theories on natural selection were applicable to human beings when slavery was legal in the US. Hitler, a Christian as many have pointed out, tried to do the same in Germany.

Its a bit humorous to watch you take this position. Early Christians held the Earth was the center of the universe, and people like Galileo Galilei were tried for the crime of Heresy for pointing out that science conflicted with their Christian dogma. I picture you as one of the die hards, still clinging to the idea that the Earth is the center of the Universe, long after it had been proven otherwise.

The majority of your Christian brothers have evolved, just as my Islamic brothers are evolving. Don't you think its time you moved out of the dark ages and educated yourself?

 

Tried to rep you Nadir, but it wouldn't let me Good posts.

 

Well since you're the one who first asked about Christian Crusades in the past, specify which one exactly and let us see.

Aren't you doing this right now? Blaming Christians? I am not blaming anyone. You're referring to historical events that happened and not teachings. We Christians are now living the new covenant that was given to us through Jesus Christ.

Human Evolution is an idea but not a fact. Gravity, on the other hand, can be experimentally proven. You should keep this in mind.
You should read more about Hitler's religious views. He supported Christianity at times but in no way he acted as a Christian. He was satanic and that what he served.
Further Explain your point about Slavery and natural selection.

We sure did Evolve but not religiously. People, including the Church, can make wrong decisions but that does not mean we should follow them. If everyone is going to interpret the words of God according to their time and environment, then it would not be a religion.

 

First, Luke, you would have to understand the difference between the Crusades and the Inquisition. Google it yourself. I'm not your servant.

No, I'm citing historical examples to show how the religion you pretend to follow has evolved, in spite of very specific commands to kill in the bible.

Because you said so? Why don't you back up your statements with some factual evidence. There are volumes of experimental evidence to back my claim, and literally none to back yours.

Here, let me help you take the first step:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...n+in+man+evidence&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Do you understand how race horses are bred? That is how slave owners bread slaves. If you want some evidence, have a look at the NBA and the NFL.

Thank you for conceding the point.

Actually, that is the very definition of religion. The interpretation of the words in the holy books. Obviously, nobody would interpret those words today to mean the Earth is flat. 1500 years ago, on the other hand, no problem. As I said, it won't be long till the last of the dinosaurs who dispute evolution, such as yourself, will be gone.

 

If I can interrupt this off-topic prayer meeting you fellas have goin for just a sec, I gotta call a technical foul on Nadir. The following sentence is not correct.

A selective breeding program, whether it be with turtles, hydrangeas, monkeys, or men, can prove that it is possible to breed for preferred traits... taller offspring, more germ resistant peas, bulldogs with shorter snouts so they don't suffocate when latching onto a bull (oddly that's what they were bred to do), but by its very definition it can't prove "natural" selection.

"Natural" selection suggests a species will automatically perform the task of propagating the species however possible... ie - the female frog will gravitate to the stronger more powerful frog so that her tadpoles will have a greater chance of survival... the woman will be attracted to a man that has more powerful qualities (either physical or otherwise depending on the environment) because it will ensure her survival and give her the chance to raise a powerful brood, etc.

Aside from the instinctive choices... the species will adapt based on what works... if the fruit is only high on the tree, the short guys in the herd will starve and die, or cease to be selected by the females because they cant reach the fruit to feed her (and ftr... why IS it the females that seem to always have the choice?!). As the the taller ones breed, the species evolves into a taller group automatically as a product of survival of the ones with the traits most capable of surviving.

In the course of collecting books I ended up with a 1910 Sociology textbook that applies Darwinian logic to everything on the planet much as we'd add salt and pepper to a meal. It had much to say about the ex-slaves of the day, but it did not include your NFL/NBA theory, and not just because neither league existed.


(I'm paraphrasing the next part from an old outdated book, so nobody mistake these for my thoughts)
The book in question, using the high-power science of its day... went on to describe that the *reason* the negro was "shiftless and lazy" (that apparently was considered a simple fact) was that in the hot equatorial climates from which they were brought, a hardworking energetic person was likely to succumb to the heat and die, whereas the slacker would survive to have offspring.

The book totally missed this physical superiority that presumably resulted from slave breeding. In fact if the book were right, the NBA and NFL would be devoid of black players based on the application of Darwin's principles.To me that says the NBA/NFL may have more blacks as a matter of socialization, not because they were bred to physical superiority in the 19th century and prior.

Anyway, after reading that book (or at least the parts that were so outdated they were like reading a comic book)... I don't get real excited about every theory someone tosses out as scientific fact. It behooves us to have what one of my college profs described as a little bell in the back of the head that goes off when people start saying "THIS is a fact", cause "they" may be wrong.

[And after reading it I also know why our grandparents/great-grandparents were blatant racists, even the stuff taught in college was telling them that blacks were inferior.]

Fifty years from now a lotta the science we hold dear will look like the equivalent of sacrificing virgins to the volcano gods so we can have better crops (which I'll add is a terrible waste of virgins and is a practice we must stop NOW if somebody's still at it).

OK, didnt really want to write a book... just pointing out planned breeding program is the antithesis of Darwins theory. That fact doesn't prove or disprove the overall theory, it just means you used a prop that won't hold up.

Thank you for your time, you may now resume the previously scheduled pissing match already in progress.

 

Technically speaking, blacks are a fitter race than whites.

 

Point well taken. Selective breeding is not natural selection. I'll also concede the point about the white minorities in the NBA/NFL having more than a single contributing factor. Let me rephrase my argument.

If we consider the absurdly disproportionate percentage of African Americans involved in the NBA and NFL, it is not unreasonable to suspect selective breeding played a role in achieving such inequality. If a gene pool can be changed by selective breeding in such a short amount of time, it is reasonable to assume natural selection could have such an effect over a prolonged period of time. Lets call it a supporting argument.

Also, regarding the glaring absence of facts and statistics presented as evidence in support of my claims, lets just call it my laziness. If you think selective breeding could not have played a role in the current NBA/NFL roster, present me any reasonable argument(no evidence necessary) as to why not. If we can get that far, I'll start digging up the facts to support my claim.

Racist!

Actually, the writer of The Bell Curve would probably concede your point, with a few provisos of course.

 

Like I said, we Christians are following the new covenant given to us by Jesus Christ. If you want to call the change from old to the new testament an "Evolving Event", I'm fine with that. You do not see Christians sacrificing lambs to ask for forgiveness anymore which was important in the old testament. The old testament was a preparation and a lesson to the people of Israel on the rules coming in the new covenant. In the words of Jeremiah, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah."
God prepared us for the new covenant, as foretold in the old testament. When the new set of rules and new covenant took place, we no longer looked back at the old one. You might ask but why? Well, God sent his only son in body to take away our sins- that is the most precious thing. The old testament could not provide this forgiveness by simply sacrificing a lamb.

Well, Gravity can be experimentally proven and measured (9.81 ms squared). We now have the technological advancements to prove this accurately.
Moving on to Darwin's theory of Evolution. First, there is no doubt at all that Darwin was a great thinker. He got some things correct and other things like denying creation wrong. He even doubted himself at the end of his life- “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”
The fact is that Evolution as a concept is just a collection of ideas and speculations and they are still trying to put together the different pieces of the puzzle.

Scientific Summary that backs-up Creation of Humans & not evolution:
1) In order to accurately determine the origin of a species, you need a DNA sample. Otherwise, it is impossible to reconstruct the complete genetic makeup (genome) of any individual who died very long ago and accurately determine whether it is a human or a chimpanzee.

2) A lot of Evolution is based on estimation and logically thinking which sometimes can be false.

3) Many new experiments suggesting Men had 1 common ancestors and likewise women with 1 female ancestor.
Read more about this. "By analyzing the Y chromosome DNA from males in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are patrilineally descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago."

4) one of the assumptions of evolution is positive mutation that adds information to the cell and pass it on to the next generation. This has never been scientifically proven.

I now know what you're referring to. I read Rob's extensive reply to this too. Well, NBA and NFL are picking the best of the best, so you'd expect to see tall, huge men. I somewhat agree with this because most of these players are from American origin and if slavery had an opportunity to select the "fittest", then the descending lineage will also be fit - genetically.

However, one might argue with me here because these slaves at the time
1) Were not Isolated from mating with other different races
2) Immigration of black people from different parts of the world took place.
3) There are international black Athletes in different sports who are successful and very fit. Example- The fastest man in the world (Usain Bolt) is Jamaican and was born in Jamaica from Jamaican parents.
4) I heard a lot about the hot weather conditions in Africa plays a role in the distribution of oxygen and blood pressure levels. This could be more of a biological evidence to support against natural selection during slavery.

All of the above can disturb the gene pattern and genetic pool of the population.

 

is slavery permitted in Bible? I heard it permitted, same as in other holy books!

seems new testaments are peaceful although on that time Christian hadn't much power and any land to control to show their power on that time but slavery is other thing. we know it as a horrible thing in human history. rather to know what bible said about this thing and why?

 

Tell that to the French guy who's married to the supermodel that dated Mick Jagger

@Luke I can't help but laugh out loud when I see you refuting evolution theory because according to you it can't be proven while you still believe in (and sell?) God, Adam and Eve.

 

Your fellow Christians have had that new covenant for 1600 years or so. It hasn't stopped them from proselytizing by the sword, murdering millions of people in an effort to spread the faith, murdering millions more for heresy, murdering millions more for possession of the bible, and burning and drowning women for the practice of witchcraft. Given that these activities are not all that common for Chrsitians today, I'd say most of you have evolved. Kudos.

And we have an ever expanding fossil record to refer to across all species which favors evolution and completely dispells the creation myth. We also have a very active group of scientists doing genetic research to create drought resistant corn and insect resistant fruits and vegetables. I imagine the only reason you don't see more tampering with the Human DNA chain is because it is highly controversial. Without stepping over the boundaries Roy laid out on natural selection, the fact that a species can evolve has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Think of it this way. If we start cloning human beings, something we are already capable of doing, only then will evolution of mankind stop.

So let me get this straight. Your scientific evidence that the Creation story is accurate boils down to a scientist's claim that mankind has a common Y chromosome ancestor who Debatably walked the planet somewhere between 60-150 thousand years ago? But according to your bible, God was busily creating Adam and Eve about 7000 years ago. Had you checked out the scientist who did the research on your "evidence".

Are you surprised to find his work leads him to believe in evolution while somehow or other you think it substantiates the creation story?

Well you are half right. They did "select" the fittest. They also only bred the fittest with the fittest. You might recognize the name of the man in the quote below, extolling the value of breeding people like cattle:

There are also great new white players coming from eastern Europe. Does that change the ratios that currently exist?

Go have a look around Africa. You'll find the people there are generally smaller than your average American.

 

Actually thats because food and nutrition levels there are way lower. Find the average of well fed africans and then compare it to americans.

How?

 

Possibly true. Then again, if you look at the statistics I linked, You'll find the average Dutch male is bigger than the average American male, and presumably nutrition is the same. I was simply pointing out the lack of evidence to support the claim that Africans are just bigger.

Cloning freezes the gene pool. I'm no expert on cloning, but assuming we start making genetic replicas, we eliminate the expansion and diversity of the gene pool. Difficult for some aberration in the gene pool to evolve into the next species of man if we eliminate all aberrations in the gene pool. Natural selection changed to human selection, Gattica style, and we will do it for humanitarian reasons (Elimination of dna prone to cancer, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, etc.)

 

My fellow Christians are the ones following the commands of God. Forgiveness, love and care were all traits of the new testament. How would murdering solve anything? Again, just like you are arguing with me about this, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else argues that Hitler & G.W.Bush, so called "Christians" are also following the words of God in the name of Christianity by Murdering. The old traditions you are referring to are long gone when the New testament took place.

No of course not but He is still a scientist with credibility. I mentioned him because he believed all Men had 1 common human ancestor and same thing with women. They did this by tracking the Mitochondrial chromosome. Not only he got the number of years wrong but there were a lot of mistakes that he assumed during the experiment. Again, of course this is not accurate which brings me to the point that I mentioned before. This is all based on speculations and assumptions. He is not more or less accurate than Darwin. Given Darwin did not have the technological advancements at the time to proof his theories, it tells you that a lot of it was based on estimations and assumptions.
Let me get this clear, are you denying the Creation just because you do not believe in the existence of the Creator God?

Are you surprised to find his work leads him to believe in evolution while somehow or other you think it substantiates the creation story?
How did his work led him to believe in evolution if he deduced the origin was a human and not a chimpanzee?

[/QUOTE]
The body learns to adapt to extreme conditions, especially hot ones. This can affect the blood circulation and distribution of oxygen. Malnutrition is a different story. Of course, Americans are more fed than Africans but we are focusing on the genetic element of their biological body.