Christianity and Islam are a lot similar than you would like to think...
Defending Biblical Christianity, and not the actions of whatever religious powers claimed, rightly or not, to be "Christian", Christianity and Islam have only one thing in common: Abraham.
The Bible states that Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac, through whom came the Jewish nation, upon the altar. Islam claims Abraham actually offered Ishamel, his illegitimate son through Sarah's handmaid Hagar.
How much could possibly be in common, when the Qu'uran denies the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, the deity of Christ, and the promises to God's people, Israel? The Christians and the Jews, the "people of the Book", according to the Qu'uran, who refuse to convert to Islam, must be eliminated.
5:51 "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them."
It is precisely because of the type of statement you just made (ridiculously comparing all muslims to Nazism) that they stay in the news.
His only mistake was assuming that all Muslims are followers of Islam.
Yet, the essence of his point remains: the Nazis and Islamists share a common goal: the eradication of the Jews.
If you believe it's even possible to be for or against a fifth of the world's people, based on their religion... you're just not making sense.
It makes even less sense to assume that something a large number of people believe cannot be determined to be either right or wrong. Whatever happened to the Law of Noncontradiction?
... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Don't forget that the purpose of this law was not to prevent relgious expression by members of or organizations within the government, but to prevent a church (i.e. denomination) from controlling the government, and in turn to prevent the government from creating and enforcing a 'state church'.
The words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment.
"It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of p, and in particular it does not say that p = 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination."
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification,
Anyone can survive forever on a life-machine, if everyone refuses to admit the person has died.
I find that if people look at simple statistics, they would see that not only is it possible, but we HAVE to be here
Think of it as the chance is.0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1.
How about we look at some simple calculus?
Given the equation
y =.0000000000001% * X
or
y =.000000000000001 * X
As X->infinity, Y->infinity. That is, as x increases without bound, so does y.
So, by your logic, not only do we *have* to exist, there must be an infinite number of (ever so slightly different) well-formed human races in the galaxy, compounded by an even greater infinite number of malformed, degenerate, incomplete evolutions of dirt.
You'd think one could follow the same logic, and purport that not only should there be one "missing link", there should be a nearly infinitessimal number, easily and regularly discovered by school children around the globe.
The fact that neither of these conclusions have been supported by valid observations is a cause of great concern to evolutionsists....
Face it. It takes as much faith to believe in evolution, as it does to belive in creationism. That makes evolution a religion, not science.
I'm sorry. I've never posted to slashdot before, simply because it wasn't worth it or I didn't have time.
But come on! What are all these posts about "evolution has been tested in the labs", "evolution is science", "scientific data tends toward evolution as being true", "creationism is a myth.
Name me one. One single evidence "for evolution". Can they reproduce evolution in the labs? No. Could the earth have been around millions, billions of years? No. (Think of the size of the sun millions of years ago! Think of the orbit of our moon, steadily moving away from us! Think of the speed of the spinning earth!). Where are our thousands of missing links? Don't show me one malformed set of bones... if evolution really happened, they should be everywhere! Where are they?!
Can Creationism be proved in the labs? No. Is there evidence for Creation? Yes, if you interpret it that way. Sadly, scientists view the Grand Canyon and erroneously claim that millions of years of irrigation led to its creation. Why couldn't it have been a world-wide flood? Why is it that every race on earth has historical data or stories of a one-world flood? Could the Bible be true? Gasp! No, then we'd have to believe all of it. So lets make up something else, something that lets us throw out Creationism and the Bible.
Fact is, evolutions is a theory. It requires faith, just like Creationism. Science can be proven in the labs. Creationism is not science. Creationisn is a theory. There is evidence that supports Creationism. Some claim it, too, is distorted. But simply ask yourself: "were you there?". No. If you can't observe it, there is no way you can prove it. End-of-story.
To claim that Evolution is not a theory, and to teach it as fact is simply plain wrong. When scientists stoop to falsifying data on a regular basis, something serious must be very wrong. (See link if you're really interested in reading about this....)
http://www.evolution-facts.org/
Slashdot Mirror
Christianity and Islam are a lot similar than you would like to think...
Defending Biblical Christianity, and not the actions of whatever religious powers claimed, rightly or not, to be "Christian", Christianity and Islam have only one thing in common: Abraham.
The Bible states that Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac, through whom came the Jewish nation, upon the altar. Islam claims Abraham actually offered Ishamel, his illegitimate son through Sarah's handmaid Hagar.
How much could possibly be in common, when the Qu'uran denies the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ, the deity of Christ, and the promises to God's people, Israel? The Christians and the Jews, the "people of the Book", according to the Qu'uran, who refuse to convert to Islam, must be eliminated.
5:51 "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them."
How similar, indeed...
It is precisely because of the type of statement you just made (ridiculously comparing all muslims to Nazism) that they stay in the news.
... you're just not making sense.
His only mistake was assuming that all Muslims are followers of Islam.
Yet, the essence of his point remains: the Nazis and Islamists share a common goal: the eradication of the Jews.
If you believe it's even possible to be for or against a fifth of the world's people, based on their religion
It makes even less sense to assume that something a large number of people believe cannot be determined to be either right or wrong. Whatever happened to the Law of Noncontradiction?
Au contraire, monsieur....
... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
t ml
Don't forget that the purpose of this law was not to prevent relgious expression by members of or organizations within the government, but to prevent a church (i.e. denomination) from controlling the government, and in turn to prevent the government from creating and enforcing a 'state church'.
The words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment.
http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.h
1Co 11:14 "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"
In a day and age with Google, you'd think one would research just ever so slightly before making false claims.
Answers in Genesis
"It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of p, and in particular it does not say that p = 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination."
John 15:18-21:
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Scientific theories, like evolution, relativity and plate tectonics, are based on hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification,
Anyone can survive forever on a life-machine, if everyone refuses to admit the person has died.
Matters of proven, or at least provable fact belong in the secular classroom.
Why are the evolutionists allowed to purport that their theory is provable, and the creationists' is not?
I find that if people look at simple statistics, they would see that not only is it possible, but we HAVE to be here
.0000000000001% * X, if X->inf, then we get, eventually, 1.
.0000000000001% * X .000000000000001 * X
Think of it as the chance is
How about we look at some simple calculus?
Given the equation
y =
or
y =
As X->infinity, Y->infinity. That is, as x increases without bound, so does y.
So, by your logic, not only do we *have* to exist, there must be an infinite number of (ever so slightly different) well-formed human races in the galaxy, compounded by an even greater infinite number of malformed, degenerate, incomplete evolutions of dirt.
You'd think one could follow the same logic, and purport that not only should there be one "missing link", there should be a nearly infinitessimal number, easily and regularly discovered by school children around the globe.
The fact that neither of these conclusions have been supported by valid observations is a cause of great concern to evolutionsists....
Face it. It takes as much faith to believe in evolution, as it does to belive in creationism. That makes evolution a religion, not science.
>> 3) God is real, evidence of evolution was put here to confuse us.
Since (3) is true, Satan is merely succeeding in his plan to keep people from coming to God.
Has *anyone* here read Genesis 1-3?
If you are going to accept the Bible, you have to accept Genesis. If you are going to accept Genesis, there is *no room* for evolution.
Intersestingly enough, I've noticed a recent proliferation of Firefox across university comptuers here University of Waterloo
Plus, they have been preconfigured with Flash and other plugins installed, many of which the still present IE is lacking (security concerns?)
Nor should it be. Fact was, I *was* taught Evolution. Except with a different perspective. One that assumed it wasn't already true
Name me a single piece of fossil evidence that hasn't been concoted, misinterpreted, or pointed out by others to be an error.
(1) Changes *within* species.
(2) Changes *within* species.
(1) Changes *within* species.
(2) Changes *within* species.
Please don't confuse micro-evolution, which is a known, observable, and tested fact, with macro-evolution.
I'm sorry. I've never posted to slashdot before, simply because it wasn't worth it or I didn't have time. But come on! What are all these posts about "evolution has been tested in the labs", "evolution is science", "scientific data tends toward evolution as being true", "creationism is a myth. Name me one. One single evidence "for evolution". Can they reproduce evolution in the labs? No. Could the earth have been around millions, billions of years? No. (Think of the size of the sun millions of years ago! Think of the orbit of our moon, steadily moving away from us! Think of the speed of the spinning earth!). Where are our thousands of missing links? Don't show me one malformed set of bones... if evolution really happened, they should be everywhere! Where are they?! Can Creationism be proved in the labs? No. Is there evidence for Creation? Yes, if you interpret it that way. Sadly, scientists view the Grand Canyon and erroneously claim that millions of years of irrigation led to its creation. Why couldn't it have been a world-wide flood? Why is it that every race on earth has historical data or stories of a one-world flood? Could the Bible be true? Gasp! No, then we'd have to believe all of it. So lets make up something else, something that lets us throw out Creationism and the Bible. Fact is, evolutions is a theory. It requires faith, just like Creationism. Science can be proven in the labs. Creationism is not science. Creationisn is a theory. There is evidence that supports Creationism. Some claim it, too, is distorted. But simply ask yourself: "were you there?". No. If you can't observe it, there is no way you can prove it. End-of-story. To claim that Evolution is not a theory, and to teach it as fact is simply plain wrong. When scientists stoop to falsifying data on a regular basis, something serious must be very wrong. (See link if you're really interested in reading about this....) http://www.evolution-facts.org/