home
RSS
April 29th, 2013
10:51 AM ET

New film examines science vs. religion

(CNN) – Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins discuss religion in the modern world and debate science in their new film.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Atheism • Belief • Science

Next entry »
soundoff (1,595 Responses)
  1. Bootyfunk

    ALL religions are cults, including Christianity.

    when a religion is not accepted by society, it is called a cult.
    when a cult is accepted by society, it becomes a religion.
    when a religion loses all its cult members, it becomes a mythology.

    religion/cults are bad for you. they teach you to turn off your brain and obey. have the courage to get up off your knees and think for yourself – you won't regret it.

    April 29, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • Science

      Agree

      Holy Hallucinations 35

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XTCRdC8Dlo&w=640&h=360]

      April 29, 2013 at 10:06 pm |
    • mzh

      Dear Bootyfunk:

      That is not true... it is human who decides to do wrong to themselves by not believing in The Creator or by associating partners with The Lord Almighty such as some say the God has begotten a son and so on.... if you study the times of any prophets like Noah or Abraham, Moses or so on... you will find that every prophet worked day and nights to invite his people to believe in his message but very few of them believed in him and most of them did not... for example during the time of Noah most of the references says 20 or 200 believed to be on board and his own son did not believe in him...

      I would like to share a beautiful verse from Quran that talks about something what you are saying:

      If you disbelieve – indeed, Allah is Free from need of you. And He does not approve for His servants disbelief. And if you are grateful, He approves it for you; and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. Then to your Lord is your return, and He will inform you about what you used to do. Indeed, He is Knowing of that within the breasts. The Quran Chapter 39: Verse 7

      So if the entire humankind says that there is no God or says something evil about God, that does not change the status of The Creator a bit and on the other side if entire humankind believe in Him as He is that also does not raise His status...

      Please keep studying and you never know what is waiting for you tomorrow to discover...

      Peace!!!

      April 29, 2013 at 10:33 pm |
    • Bootyfunk

      @mzh
      you are brainwashed, brother. step into the light!

      you wrote: "if you study the times of any prophets like Noah or Abraham, Moses or so on... you will find that every prophet worked day and nights to invite his people to believe in his message but very few of them believed in him and most of them did not.."

      exactly, he was recruiting for the cult. most people knew he was nuts. time for people to realize that again.

      if there is a christian god, he is a monster and not worthy of worship. he killed millions in his great flood, including babies, the elderly, the infirm, the mentally challenge, physically challenged, men women and children. how can anyone fill a child's lungs with water and call that divine justice? he specifically murdered babies to punish the pharoah. again, guilty of infanticide. yahweh is not worthy of worship. murdering people because they don't believe in you is evil.

      also, you can't "choose" what you believe. you either believe something or you don't. you can't decide to believe in the tooth fairy. you either do or don't. same with god.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:49 pm |
    • Topher

      Science

      C'mon, dude. You know I'm willing to read your links. But let's be fair. One at a time.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:20 pm |
    • Austin

      This is a poor video.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:20 pm |
    • Science

      Thoth

      Science debating religion is absurd. One evolves as new evidence emerges and remains under global scrutiny; the other holds rigid correctness to ancient creeds drafted by men over various periods of time and does not welcome evidence which counters their beleifs. Case in point – a 'scientist' for the Creationist Museum responded to the question "what do you do when the evidence runs contrary to the bible?" – with "we go with the word of god". Translation: You can show me it's wrong but I still choose to believe it.

      April 29, 2013 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse | Reply

      Science

      Thoth ..............it is like debating the fire pit of hell !

      Ancient Earth Crust Stored in Deep Mantle

      Apr. 24, 2013 — Scientists have long believed that lava erupted from certain oceanic volcanoes contains materials from the early Earth's crust. But decisive evidence for this phenomenon has proven elusive. New research from a team including Carnegie's Erik Hauri demonstrates that oceanic volcanic rocks contain samples of recycled crust dating back to the Archean era 2.5 billion years ago. Their work is published in Nature.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130424132705.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |

      Thoth

      2 billion years? But that can't be....the christian scientist told me that the earth is only maybe 6000 years old....and he can't be wrong because he based that on the word of god ;-}

      April 29, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |

      Science

      Thoth

      Like the LEAD to GOLD ISSUE ?

      Where Does All Earth's Gold Come From? Precious Metals the Result of Meteorite Bombardment, Rock Analysis Finds

      Sep. 9, 2011 — Ultra high precision analyses of some of the oldest rock samples on Earth by researchers at the University of Bristol provides clear evidence that the planet's accessible reserves of precious metals are the result of a bombardment of meteorites more than 200 million years after Earth was formed.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907132044.htm

      Chondrites are fun to find !

      Peace

      April 29, 2013 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |

      Thoth

      @science – don't be crazy dude....everyone knows the devil put gold here to tempt man.....pfft....meteorites...you must be off your meds. Those aren't real. Just fear-mongering scientific manifestations.......

      Disclaimer: yes, this is sarcasm.

      April 29, 2013 at 4:08 pm | Report abuse |

      Science

      Thoth ..........thanks for the reminder about my meds !

      Ca-nabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) – National Cancer Insti-tute

      http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/.../page4

      Mar 21, 2013 – [1,2] These plant-derived compounds may be referred to as phytocannabinoids. ... have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. ... In lung cancer cell lines, CBD upregulated ICAM-1, leading to ...

      Good stuff !

      Peace

      Mentioned somewhere in the book of nasty !

      April 29, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |

      Science

      Thoth.................... education is fun with facts and a pocket full of chondrites !

      A little backfill on those stoney irom meteorites !.

      Grains of Sand from Ancient Supernova Found in Meteorites: Supernova May Have Been the One That Triggered the Formation of the Solar System

      Apr. 19, 2013 — It's a bit like learning the secrets of the family that lived in your house in the 1800s by examining dust particles they left behind in cracks in the floorboards.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422111246.htm

      From page 2 Pound sand austin !

      Good night !

      April 29, 2013 at 11:36 pm |
  2. The Non Believer

    Fine Tuned Universe?

    80 tons space rocks and meteors hit the earth each year – we live in a shooting gallery.
    99% of all species are extinct – waste
    There are lost of diseases capable of killing us- cancers, viruses, bacteria, genetic.
    When the sun dies it will engulf the earth and burn it to a crisp.
    Most of the Universe is not habitable.
    We can't live on 2/3 of the earth's surface.
    The eye can detect only a small part of the electromagnetic specturm.
    We eat and breath through the same hole risking choking. Dolphins can do this but we can't.
    The Universe is expanding towards oblivion. Soon we won't be able to see beyond our own galaxy – which is colliding with Andromeda.
    So much for fine tuning I say.

    April 29, 2013 at 9:48 pm |
    • Answer

      To the freaks, it's really about finding the little corner of the world where they can go 'ahhh this must be heaven.' And then inserting a whole bunch of nice sounding words to suit the temporary enjoyment they've found.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Most physicists regard the observable universe as highly tuned to enable the emergence of life. So what? That tuning is not evidence of god, it is a clue about some as of yet undiscovered aspect of the observable universe.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:00 pm |
    • Variable

      "Most physicists regard the observable universe as highly tuned to enable the emergence of life."
      Total hogwash. You are just making crap up now. Time to shut up and gtfo.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:32 pm |
    • Topher

      We live in a fallen world.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:34 pm |
    • Athy

      Of course the universe "appears" to us to be fine tuned for life. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here to observe that it wasn't. Duh.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:47 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Variable,
      How much credibility is deserved by merely calling someone names and telling them to leave. Not much. My assertion is easily checked. The fine tuning of the physical constants of the universe is accepted fact. Changing some of them by tiny amounts would render the universe inert.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:47 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Achy,
      Of course you are right, but the degree of tuning is exceptional. As I said, it is a clue to some beautiful aspect of nature we don't yet understand.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:49 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Sorry, I meant Athy.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:51 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Bostontola, what is your source/evidence that most physicists accept fine tuning as a "fact"?

      April 29, 2013 at 10:53 pm |
    • Science

      Dear topher

      Holy Hallucinations 35

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XTCRdC8Dlo&w=640&h=360]

      April 29, 2013 at 10:54 pm |
    • Topher

      Science

      Sorry, dude. Not interested in watching your obscene video.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:00 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Tom,
      Pretty much every science journal. Find me one physicist who says the physical constants are not finely tuned to enable life.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:02 pm |
    • Science

      Here then topher have a fun life !

      But splat goes a fairy in the sky !

      Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet

      Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse | Reply

      Science

      Human Y Chromosome Much Older Than Previously Thought

      Mar. 4, 2013 — The discovery and analysis of an extremely rare African American Y chromosome pushes back the time of the most recent common ancestor for the Y chromosome lineage tree to 338,000 years ago. This time predates the age of the oldest known anatomically modern human fossils.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130305145821.htm

      No god(s) needed or required to graduate from public schools in the US

      Remember : Adam had to POKE himself hard with his OWN BONE to create Eve.

      No god(s) needed................... Old. DNA works..................also catches crooks !

      Ancient DNA Reveals Europe's Dynamic Genetic History

      Apr. 23, 2013 — Ancient DNA recovered from a series of skeletons in central Germany up to 7,500 years old has been used to reconstruct the first detailed genetic history of modern Europe.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423134037.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 9:41 pm | Report abuse | Reply

      Science

      Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet

      Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse | Reply

      Science

      Dover Trial Transcripts............................................. FACTS.

      Below are the complete transcripts from the Dover Trial. Thanks to our friends at the National Center for Science Education for helping us fill in the missing transcripts.

      http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 9:40 pm | Report abuse | Reply

      Science

      From Soup to Cells—the Origin of Life

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2aOriginoflife.shtml

      No angels the pope kicked them off the team last year !

      Listening to the Big Bang – In High Fidelity

      Apr. 4, 2013 — A decade ago, spurred by a question for a fifth-grade science project, University of Washington physicist John Cramer devised an audio recreation of the Big Bang that started our universe nearly 14 billion years ago.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130404170154.htm

      Facts work when teaching children !

      Science

      April 29, 2013 at 9:39 pm | Report abuse | Reply

      Good night !

      April 29, 2013 at 11:15 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "Pretty much every science journal" Fine. Can you cite one for the layman?

      Everything I've seen thus far indicates that "fine tuning of the universe" is a Christian idea that supports the existence of some creator. If you have anything that doesn't, I'd like to see it.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:22 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Tom,
      Fine tuning is merely a reflection of the fact that by changing some of the physical constants by very small percentages results in a universe where for example, atoms wouldn't form. It doesn't reflect any purpose or creator, it is just a consequence of the standard model. No one would write a paper on it in a journal because it is such a basic result. Some religious people fallacious lay use this as evidence for god. It is a classic non sequitur fallacy.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:27 pm |
    • Topher

      Science

      C'mon, dude. You know I'm willing to look at your linked sites, but be fair. One at a time.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:28 pm |
    • Variable

      Bostonola, how much credibility do you have when you are clearly pulling bullshit out of your ass and using words that presuppose an "intelligent designer" when ALL 'intelligent-design' theories have been totally debunked?
      Not much.
      Let's be clear. You are exaggerating and presupposing things that are not even indicated to exist. In pointing this out, my credibility is not tested. You are just a schizoid religious nut trying to bullshit your way past people who actually know how to science. What is tuned? Nothing. Nothing is tuned here. You are full of crap.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:33 pm |
    • Topher

      Variable

      " ... when ALL 'intelligent-design' theories have been totally debunked?"

      Where and when?

      You are just a schizoid religious nut"

      Ad hominem fallacy. You're disqualified. 🙂

      April 29, 2013 at 11:36 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Sorry, Bostontola, but the term "fine tuning" suggest that there was a "tuner." I don't believe there was one. I thought you said that any science journal would discuss it, but when I google it, there are conflicting opinions on whether it "is" or not.

      I don't think the universe is "fine-tuned" at all. I think that had any of the constants been slightly different, life might or might not exist here. If it did exist, it might not be life as we know it now.

      If it's such a given then there ought to be something you can cite.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:38 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Variable,
      Your ad hominem arguments are devoid of facts. You have no credibility at all. You could have cited a counter argument by a respected physicist but no. Btw, I am a hard core atheist. John Gribben, Stephen Hawking, Paul Davies all recognize the simple fact that physical constants are validated in a narrow range allowing atoms to form, matter to clump, etc leading to life evolving. You are loud but information free.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:39 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Tom,
      Fine tuned does not imply a tuner at all. You may want to make that conclusion, but there is no logical compulsion for that. Life is finely tuned by evolution with no tuner.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:41 pm |
    • Athy

      How did the "fine tuner" get fine tuned? You keep invoking a supreme being to account for life, but never offer any plausible explanation for the supreme being. That's where your argument falls apart. You can't just "toss it over the transom" to wiggle off the hook.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:43 pm |
    • Topher

      The real Tom

      I think the point of fine-tuning — from the Christian perspective — is that without all of that life WOULDN'T exist. And so what you have is a mathematic impossibility to have all of those things working together to meet the perfect circu.mstances and if any of it is off ... notta. So if you're belief is that we're a cosmic accident ... WOW are we ever lucky.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:46 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "Fine tuned does not imply a tuner at all. "

      It most certainly does. If you can point me to a publication that shows otherwise, great. When you say something is "tuned" whether finely or not, it implies that something tuned it. And that's exactly what I see when I google the term-atheists saying that it's simply an argument for the existence of a god.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:47 pm |
    • Variable

      Bostondola, I am not the one making the claims here. YOU are the one saying all this crap. YOU are the one that needs to cite your sources. The whole fine-tuning thing is bullcrap. It's a perceptual bias that has no basis in reality.
      Sure, you can change one variable and the whole thing changes, but that is also showing a bias in assuming that all the other variable would automatically stay the same. You think a frog pond is "finely tuned" because the frogs living there are so perfectly evolved to live there. You don't know squat about science. There is no fine-tuning here. You are also presupposing a certain level of precursor states which are no more relevant than any other sorts of idle speculation.
      In short, you are stupid and that is not an ad hominem. Try looking it up instead of assuming that any insult is an ad hominem, you fucking retard.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:49 pm |
    • The real Tom

      The Gopher says: "I think the point of fine-tuning — from the Christian perspective — is that without all of that life WOULDN'T exist. And so what you have is a mathematic impossibility to have all of those things working together to meet the perfect circu.mstances and if any of it is off ... notta. So if you're belief is that we're a cosmic accident ... WOW are we ever lucky."

      See what I mean, Bostontola?

      April 29, 2013 at 11:49 pm |
    • The real Tom

      Bostontola, are you a physicist? Or another professional in the hard sciences? Variable appears to be.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:51 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Tom,
      Lots of people misinterpret science to advance their agenda. I get that. Doesn't mean we should accept that. If some physical constants are needed to be in a narrow range to allow matter to form, it just is.

      ^ Davies (2003). "How bio-friendly is the universe". Int.J.Astrobiol 2 (115): 115. arXiv:astro-ph/0403050. doi:10.1017/S1473550403001514.
      ^ George F. R. Ellis, "Does the Multiverse Really Exist?" Scientific American
      ^ Lawrence Joseph Henderson, The fitness of the environment: an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter The Macmillan Company, 1913
      ^ a b R. H. Dicke (1961). "Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle". Nature 192 (4801): 440–441. Bibcode:1961Natur.192..440D. doi:10.1038/192440a0.
      ^ Heilbron, J. L. The Oxford guide to the history of physics and astronomy, Volume 10 2005, p. 8
      ^ Profile of Fred Hoyle at OPT. Optcorp.com. Retrieved on 2013-03-11.
      ^ Gribbin. J and Rees. M, Cosmic Coincidences: Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology, 1989, ISBN 0-553-34740-3
      ^ Stephen Hawking, 1988. A Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, ISBN 0-553-05340-X, p. 125.
      ^ a b Paul Davies, 1993. The Accidental Universe, Cambridge University Press, p70-71
      ^ Larry Abbott, "The Mystery of the Cosmological Constant," Scientific American, vol. 3, no. 1 (1991): 78.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:54 pm |
    • The real Tom

      From Wikipedia (yes, yes, not good enough, blah, blah, blah. Save your breath).The fine-tuned Universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination, as it assumes no other forms of life, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible.[17] In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the Universe through the process of evolution, rather than the Universe being adapted to humans (see puddle thinking). They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the Universe.[18]

      This makes sense to me. Your arguments resemble Chard's that there can be "no uncaused cause"; whereas I don't think we know that for any certainty. I think we don't know what might have occurred if the constants were different.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:57 pm |
    • Bostontola

      Variable,
      Are you going to blow a gasket? Read your comment, it continues to be solely ad hominem. Saying it louder doesn't bring it more credibility. You have no credibility. You claimed I am a religious nut but I am an atheist. Wrong, factually wrong.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:59 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "If some physical constants are needed to be in a narrow range to allow matter to form, it just is."

      IF! That's my whole point. We don't know that they are. We don't have that information yet and your assertion that fine-tuning is accepted as a fact by everyone is simply not true, apparently.

      April 29, 2013 at 11:59 pm |
    • Variable

      "Most physicists regard the observable universe as highly tuned to enable the emergence of life."
      Bostontola, those are your words. Are you trying to walk that back or pretending that you didn't mean what you said?

      April 30, 2013 at 12:01 am |
    • Answer

      Look at the utter crap that is Gopher...

      "we live in a fallen world" <<- Hilarious.

      Moron believers want you to accept that you are filth. Accept that you are sick and then indeed need healing.

      What a bunch of loser talk.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:06 am |
    • The Non Believer

      Did not expect this to cause such a row.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:12 am |
    • The real Tom

      You must be new here, Non.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:14 am |
    • Bostontola

      Variable, not walking back at all, some constants change even a little and atoms don't form. I think it's pretty safe to assume that without atoms there would be no life.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:17 am |
    • Bostontola

      Tom, you asked for some sources, these are highly respected scientists. I have not seen a good argument against it, I've seen a number of them but none that were convincing.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:19 am |
    • The real Tom

      But had atoms not formed, how do you know that some other form of life would not arise, Bostontola? We take for granted that life is only possible if atoms can form. But how do we know that? We can't know what sort of life might occur under other conditions than the ones we have. There would something different, certainly, from life as we know it.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:22 am |
    • Bostontola

      Tom, I can't argue with that. Without atoms there may be some form of life beyond my imagination. I assume without atoms, life wouldn't emerge, but that could be wrong.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:25 am |
    • The Non Believer

      I expected flack when i asked "who is moral based on the belief that they would go to heaven when they die" but state a few facts questioning a fine tuned universe?

      April 30, 2013 at 12:27 am |
    • Bostontola

      Tom,
      Is it any less disturbing to you, that in this universe with these physical constants that life on this planet is so tightly hinged on some of those constants? The broder question of if any type of life is possible is philosophical not scientific. The fact is, this universe, earth and its life are tightly hinged to those constants.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:49 am |
    • Answer

      "The fact is, this universe, earth and its life are tightly hinged to those constants."

      -That is very true. We aren't technologically capable of discovering another universe with different constants. So we don't know the possibilities.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:54 am |
    • Variable

      The constant is not so much a constant as a whole area not yet understood. It includes quantum gravity and would explain the things we call "dark matter / energy", but we don't have those things. It is neither fine nor tuned. Still hogwash.

      April 30, 2013 at 1:02 am |
    • sam stone

      "We live in a fallen world."

      We know this because it comes from translated,edited iron age hearsay...ain't that right?

      April 30, 2013 at 4:55 am |
  3. Bostontola

    " Science=the teachings of men. Bible=the teachings of God".

    Wrong. Even if I believed in god that description of science is wrong. If I believed in god, I would say science is man's study/exploration of god's creation. As it is, I say science is man's study/exploration of the natural universe. Either way, its a good thing.

    April 29, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
    • tallulah13

      The bible is nothing more than the teachings of men who believed in a certain god. It has cultural relevance, but no more actual authority than Harry Potter.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:29 am |
  4. Tom, Tom, the Other One

    Sometimes it seems so unnecessary. There's no debate, since there is never support for the claims made by the people afflicted by religiosity. Probe them a bit and you discover that they've only just convinced themselves that they believe. No basis for that belief, just the peace that surpasses understanding they find when they toss away independent thinking. Kurt Vonnegut spoke of his father that way: shed his intellect the way a soldier going over the hill throws down his rifle and backpack and legs it.

    April 29, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
    • Austin

      Ya there is support. and it was not given to you directly. therefore, you have a choice to bow before God, if you want Him to be real. but i suspect that you don't want Him to be real, and possibly so badly that you have shut God out and away . You have a void that you have to approach with desperation, not willful arrogance Tom .

      April 29, 2013 at 10:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Austin

      Confirmatory bias does not make it real. Your bullshit fallacy is so common it's pathetic.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
    • Science

      Dear Austin

      Holy Hallucinations 35

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XTCRdC8Dlo&w=640&h=360]

      April 29, 2013 at 10:46 pm |
  5. Bostontola

    .

    April 29, 2013 at 9:29 pm |
  6. mzh

    O People, if you should be in doubt about the Resurrection, then [consider that] indeed, We created you from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then from a clinging clot, and then from a lump of flesh, formed and unformed – that We may show you. And We settle in the wombs whom We will for a specified term, then We bring you out as a child, and then [We develop you] that you may reach your [time of] maturity. And among you is he who is taken in [early] death, and among you is he who is returned to the most decrepit [old] age so that he knows, after [once having] knowledge, nothing. And you see the earth barren, but when We send down upon it rain, it quivers and swells and grows [something] of every beautiful kind. – 22:5

    April 29, 2013 at 8:41 pm |
    • mzh

      Can any human ignore this? Please find me a book which talks about anything like that...

      A human was not exist before his parents had ejaculation and then that human was growing up inside the mom wombs and he was so poor and did not have any ability to do anything including the mother, and then that human comes out of the mom's womb and then in passes childhood where also can't do anything even poo without the help of mother... and then when that human becomes an adult, becomes so much arrogant and testifies against even his own existence...

      I feel so sorry for them... and my heart also cries for them that they are living in so dark and they are so blind that they can't understand that they are in dark... they actually do not let others help either...

      Peace!!!

      April 29, 2013 at 8:47 pm |
    • I grew up in a "good christian home"(tm)

      I was brought up christian and was 100% christian child. I have been inside christianity. I have firsthand experience with the hypocrisy, jealousy, gossip, back biting and lies that are so much a part of real christianity. I stopped living in darkness and being blind the day I quit christianity.
      You can lie all you want about how good christianity is and sucker in some of the more naive; but, I have seen it's black rotting heart

      April 29, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
    • mzh

      Dear I grew up in a "good christian home"(tm):

      I am sorry to hear your stories... I have met people in my American life which is little more than a decade and the ones i met was lost exactly like what you are talking about... i even met someone who practiced lots of religious such as of course raised as a christian and then converted to hinduism, then buddism, then sikhism and so on and at the end he came to Islam and it him years to finish reading the entire quran not just by reading but going to the people of knowledge to understand and then that individual discovered that this what i have been looking my entire life... despite of being raised in a Christian family, he was always in his mind a Muslim meaning believeing Jesus as a messiah and not son of God or the concept of trinity... and there are a lot of examples out there... so who know may be you will eventually be one of them... please keep it up...

      The verse was taken from The Quran Chapter 22: Verse 5

      The Quran itself actually challenges mankind to come up with one verse like that... but remember it was reveal in Arabic language and to Arab people and they were master in Arabic language... and they were not able to and eventually they have submitted themselves to Islam with their hearts....

      Peace!!!

      April 29, 2013 at 10:19 pm |
    • Topher

      I grew up in a "good christian home"(tm)

      "I have firsthand experience with the hypocrisy, jealousy, gossip, back biting and lies that are so much a part of real christianity."

      You mean they were ... SINNERS?! I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:38 pm |
  7. chubby rain

    Chad, when you flip a coin, the probability of it coming up heads is 0.5. If you flip the coin again, the probability of it coming up heads at least once continues to increase. After two flips, the probability is .75. After four flips, the probability is 0.94. Continue to flip the coin, and the probability approaches 1.

    I will agree with you that the odds of life occurring, in this particular form, on this particular planet, in this particular universe, are incredibly remote. But, I will disagree with your assertion that this evidence of design. Isn't it more likely that there are more universes out there than our own? After all, I know that at least one universe exists - I don't know which god or gods exists if any.

    April 29, 2013 at 8:23 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Very hypothetical, if one flips a coin right way, one can have same result over and over as desired.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Brain washing is hinduism, absurdity of hindu secular s, ignorant self centered to avoid truth absolute, live with it hndu atheist, ignorant self centered, having no knowledge of truth absolute, but hind darkness of their minds and soul desire like a hindu hungry dog, secular, self centered by nature.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
    • Chad

      @chubby rain "Chad, when you flip a coin, the probability of it coming up heads is 0.5. If you flip the coin again, the probability of it coming up heads at least once continues to increase. After two flips, the probability is .75. After four flips, the probability is 0.94. Continue to flip the coin, and the probability approaches 1."

      @Chad "first thing you'll need to do is correct your misunderstanding of probabilities.
      Every time you flip a coin, the odds of getting a heads is .5 (50%)

      the probability of flipping a head after having already flipped 20 heads in a row is simply 50/50, (50%)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy#Explaining_why_the_probability_is_1.2F2_for_a_fair_coin

      April 29, 2013 at 11:57 pm |
    • The real Tom

      I agree with you, Chubby Rain, but as far as Chard goes, you might as well discuss the issue with a head of cabbage.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:01 am |
  8. STFU

    Yo Mohammad, CNN reports there are muslim female suicide bombers are on rise, I like to know your thoughts.

    April 29, 2013 at 7:53 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Matter of their choice, every one is free to make up their mind. Male of female.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:01 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      believing to be a clam, Celtic belief.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:05 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Wrong spot, sorry.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:05 pm |
    • STFU

      how can you just shrug off just calling them "matter of their choice"? they're supposed to be a symbol of love and kindness in any culture.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:17 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      They have spirit and choice of their own like any one else, capable to act upon as they wish. hurt a loved one of a female, and see the result yourself.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:29 pm |
    • STFU

      I doubt "capable to act upon as they wish", they are brainwashed too, like Boston boys.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:42 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Brain washing is hinduism, absurdity of hindu secular s, ignorant self centered to avoid truth absolute, live with it hndu atheist, ignorant self centered, having no knowledge of truth absolute, but hind darkness of their minds and soul desire like a hindu hungry dog, secular, self centered by nature. check it out.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:14 pm |
  9. lionlylamb

    Ask any astrophysicist why they use the terminology "universe" and not cosmos. They might say that they use universe to explain all the celestial realm that is viewable. I use the word "Cosmos" because the term universe is so darn confining. The Cosmos includes our viewable and unviewed celestial reality. The celestial cosmos is unfathomable to our envisioned perceptions and way too large for us to ever calculate much less see it in its fullness.

    April 29, 2013 at 7:26 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      The day that you post something worthwhile will be an amazing day indeed.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Word cosmos represents to matters self contained, secular or self centered, but planets are not self contained, but dependent on other factors to be. and universe means united in essence, the constant, truth absolute. Your choice contradicts essence of planets to be. so it is not correct.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:34 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      The day(s) you begin to explain your revelations regarding any ideas worthwhile, I will be shocked and delighted!

      April 29, 2013 at 7:39 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Congratulations on another useless response in which you continue to avoid the fact that all your posts amount to absolutely nothing. Now run and post the same bullshit on another thread like the coward you are.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:42 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      I stand corrected.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:45 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      I doubt you stand any way other than self-indulgently.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:47 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Inflammatory and indecent rhetoric is Hg's forte. One needs debates not asinine innuendoes to blow off and ease one's rather mundane obliterations.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      In practice the terms cosmos and universe are interchangable. One could argue that the word cosmos describes "all that is contained within the universe". Today the word unverse doesn't mean what it first did. Universe used to mean "all that there is", but since we now know that the universe had a beginning it therefrore must have come from something that is greater in scope than our local measure of space/time.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:01 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      So the word universe confirms, it is dependent to be on some thing other then itself, contrary to hindu atheist, self fabricated belief, universe created it self and it is the god.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:09 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      Even more feigned indignation? I have attempted to engage you in conversation, but your refusal to speak plainly, or about anything that would be worth consideration has destroyed that possibility. Your consistent pseudo-intellectual posting amounts to "these things are sort of similar, therefore bible and god are true", which is tantamount to nothing other than a non-sequitur.
      Get over yourself lionly.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:12 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      AtheistSteve,

      While I cannot dispute your word, I see the Cosmos as being full of perchance trillions upon trillions of so called universes much like the ways our bodies are filled with immeasurable atomically made cellular structures. That is why I stand upon the plausibility of there being 3 chasms of cosmological orders. One being the atomized cosmos with the second being the celestial cosmos and the final one being the cellular chasms of atomized cosmology.

      I mean you know harm in my word. Just please let us be debatable and try not to sling mud upon the messenger only the message.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:14 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Celtic, clam shell belief.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:16 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Steve

      "but since we now know that the universe had a beginning it therefrore must have come from something that is greater in scope than our local measure of space/time."
      Greater is a very dicey term to use. It's very definition implies a subjective measure.
      Also, we can only say that the current state of matter, energy, and space/time began with the Big Bang, but there is no information on "before" then, and really as far as we know, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it may have always existed in one form or another.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:20 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      My 'desires' to promote my revelations of cosmological orders dare I say, needs repeti tiveness in order for said 'theory' to sink in and be rationalized much the same way children are first taught. If you want to debate my word then do so but leave your messenger ridiculing nature at home.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:26 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      And yet, every time I point out that you are merely making a non-sequitur dressed up in fancy words, you either say I'm being vulgar or you leave the thread to post the exact same thing on another thread. Don't pretend like you're just trying to "educate" people because it has always been apparent that you have no interest in that.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:29 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      While I also believe in the "Big Bang" just exactly how many Big Bangs could there be in a cosmos full of universal Big Bangs?

      April 29, 2013 at 8:32 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      What does that question have to do with what I said? Nothing. This is why I don't take you seriously lionly. The question is ill-defined, and really doesn't even mean anything significant no matter the answer, which is more than likely unknowable.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:34 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      Always you do try to defame my word without any plausible connection to that which I dare espouse. Can you please explain why my word is a fallacy by showing me and others why my word is not based upon revealing means? Are there not cosmologies of variable issuances meaning the atomized and celestial and even the cellular dimensions of spatial order?

      April 29, 2013 at 8:43 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      What my question referred to was your mentioning the Big Bang. At least you acknowledged that a cosmos full of Big Bangs is 'unknowable' much the same way a cosmos filled with unknowable amounts of structured universes is unknowable.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:48 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      Redefining the word "cosmology" to encompass what you want it to doesn't make what you say valid, if you're really saying anything at all. Why is it that you never actually address any dissenting posts, and either bring up some irrelevant question, or you leave the thread?
      Why is it that you cannot actually defend what you're saying, or even state what you're saying in common vernacular? Are you so intent on trying to confuse others and willing to dishonestly define yourself into being right?

      You ask me to explain your fallacy, well unfortunately I can't do that until you actually post some kind of argument other than "these things look kinds similar isn't that neat" with a whole bunch of nothing around it.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:52 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      Like I've said before, get off your high horse, and stop being a coward.

      April 29, 2013 at 8:53 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      1. There are atomized cosmologies a fact.

      2. There are celestial cosmologies another fact.

      3. There are cellular cosmologies yet another fact.

      The terminology known as "Fractal Cosmology" is a fact based ideology as well.

      Plain enough Hg?

      April 29, 2013 at 9:11 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      hawaiiguest

      All I'm saying is that what the Greeks first thought, that the Unverse was "all that there is" is outdated. While there is no data to confirm anything beyond our view of this universe the notion of a Superspace or Multiverse the existence of which would pose no problems with regard to conservation of matter and energy.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      BTW Hg, I did no such thing as 'redefine' cosmology! I only used said word as it was made to be used. Your ineptness toward grasping cosmological variables tells me you have yet to fully fathom and comprehend the cosmological constants of spatial relationships!

      April 29, 2013 at 9:21 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      1. There are atomized cosmologies a fact.
      Wrong. There are no cosmologists studying the field of the very small. Those are physicists. They use quantum physics to study this.

      2. There are celestial cosmologies another fact.
      True. Cosmologists study the field of the very big. They use Einsteins eqautions of relativity and gravity to study this.

      3. There are cellular cosmologies yet another fact.
      Absurd. No chemists or molecular biologists describe the organic world in the way you suggest.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:24 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      Cosmology, as it is currently used, is not applicable in the sense you want it to be. Get over it.
      Even taking your statements at face value, it adds up to absolutely nothing. Those things are somewhat similar in the way they are. So what?
      That is what you consistently do not address.
      Even taking your statements, what does it possibly accomplish? Nothing.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:24 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      High horse? I didn't know. Coward? Highly unlikely!

      April 29, 2013 at 9:27 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Hawaiiguest,

      cos·mol·o·gy

      /käzˈmäləjē/

      Noun

      1.The science of the origin and development of the universe. Modern astronomy is dominated by the big bang theory, which brings together...
      2.An account or theory of the origin of the universe.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      Yes, you are both.
      You do not actually address any criticism to your posts, and you feign indignation to justify that avoidance. You jump on a high horse when someone uses language you don't like, and avoid actually addressing the cold hard fact that to the extent that you say anything, it is completely irrelevant to any conversation, and doesn't make any point whatsoever.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:31 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      Thank you for proving exactly what I said about cosmology and it's use today.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:32 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      BTW it's fractal geometry. A field of mathematics. That some of the ideas of fractal geometry can be applied to examining nature is hardly surprising given that many other principles in mathematics can be used to describe nature as well.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:33 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      My 'theory' is one of cosmologic unification. The atomic cosmos begat the celestial cosmos and both of these chasms of cosmology begat the cellular cosmos.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:39 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      1) Don't call it a theory. It's a hypothesis, and untestable it seems as well.
      2) The word cosmology does not belong with the words atomic or cellular.
      3) Even if it were true, so what?

      April 29, 2013 at 9:42 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Nice try lionly. Your "theory" doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. No facts, no way to examine or construct experiments to discover the validity of what you claim.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:45 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      AtheistSteve,

      What rock have you been under these past years?

      http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/ is about "Fractal Cosmology".

      April 29, 2013 at 9:45 pm |
    • ..

      Lionly, how can you apply that term, which you yourself supplied the definition of, to a cellular level? Give me a break. Pretty much what HG was talking about....you redefining things to mean what you want it to mean.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:46 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      Are not all 'things' known as being celestial built out of atomized cloisters coalescing together to form all mannerisms of celestial objects?

      AtheistSteve,

      You not unlike Hg, are reaching for straws hoping to disavow my stance which will never happen. The cosmological constants of all spatial relevancies seem to demand there to be a cosmologic order be it celestial or atomic or even cellular. Until you can reprove me otherwise, I will keep on believing.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:58 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      And you accuse me of mudslinging. Fractal Cosmology is not an accepted theory.

      In physical cosmology, fractal cosmology is a set of minority cosmological theories which state that the distribution of matter in the Universe, or the structure of the universe itself, is a fractal. More generally, it relates to the usage or appearance of fractals in the study of the universe and matter. A central issue in this field is the fractal dimension of the Universe or of matter distribution within it, when measured at very large or very small scales.

      A paper published in August 2012 claims to have ruled out the hypothesis that the fractal structure of the universe continues at arbitrarily large distance scales Previously, clustering seemed to be largely prevalent in the universe up to arbitrarily large distances with observed clusters or super-clusters. This paper, however, claims that the universe is uniform at distance scales larger than 350 million light years. This is in contradiction to models of fractal cosmology and in agreement with the standard model of cosmology. However, the case for fractal universes will be completely ruled out only once measurements of the universe at even larger distance scales can be procured.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:02 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      .. (Speckles)

      There are cosmological orders to all things "Speckles". A 'universe within a universe' as Fractal Cosmology suggests are but a minimalist's view. I am attempting to clarify Fractal Cosmologies childlike undertaking by reducing the spatial dimensions to just three types of Fractal Cosmology. The first and beginning cosmos is the atomic cosmos which begat the second cosmos becoming the celestial cosmos while the living chasms of cellular cosmology was begat by both the atomic and the celestial chasms of cosmological order.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:11 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      Address my post. This is why I call you a coward. You just seem to be incapable of actually responding to people. If you're not going to, you're merely giving me more evidence to support my original assessment of you being someone who just wants to spew out any idea you have and not have it challenged.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:11 pm |
    • AtheistSteve

      Yeah HG I'm done bickering with lionly's pseudo science quackery. Clinging to crackpot fringe theories as fervently as religious nutjobs cling to gospel drivel. Let him languish in ignorance. Between him and Islam Foundation their posts are incoherent and meaningless verbal diarrhea.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:25 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      AtheistSteve,

      Did not the "Hubble telescope" take a photograph of timed exposure on a speck of darkness exposing many galaxies? Who'd have guessed? Universalists cannot dare fathom the prospect of a celestial cosmos so vast and infinite! Likewise microbiologists can't fathom the perceptions of cellular cosmologies being of relevancy. Too distant are both the celestial and the cellular for anyone to fathom without coming to a conclusion that there is cosmological order within the chasms of all mannerisms of all spatial relevancies!

      April 29, 2013 at 10:27 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      1) Stop using cosmology like you are. You are not using the word properly, and have even posted a definition which supports my point.
      2) Stop being a coward and actually address the contents of posts instead of avoiding it by reasserting yourself constantly.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:30 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      hawaiiguest,

      What Hg, am I to 'address'? What have you to add to the understanding of cosmological relevancies? Nothing much? Thought so. 😦

      April 29, 2013 at 10:35 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      Hawaiiguest,

      I told you my beliefs regarding the cosmological consistencies of spatial relevancies. You may either accept my views or reject them. Your verbal jargon toward wanting me to change my stance is noted and rejected.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:41 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @lionly

      So now you're going with the feigned indignation. How....predictable.

      Try reading back, maybe if you actually read the entirety of my posts you'd see exactly what I want you to address. I know it's easier to merely stick with your cowardly tactics, but honest discussion is better. You should give it a try.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:42 pm |
    • The real Tom

      "verbal jargon"

      Ahahahahahhhahahhhaaahaha. Good grief. Do you even READ your posts, LL? You're a blithering nutcase. Your posts make no sense at all. None. To anyone. How many people have to tell you that for it to sink in that it's not just an opinion. It's a fact.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:44 pm |
    • Science

      Dear Loonylamb

      Holy Hallucinations 35

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XTCRdC8Dlo&w=640&h=360]

      April 29, 2013 at 10:48 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Well I need to go now, I guess I'll see tomorrow whether lionly grows a pair and starts discussing things in an honest manner, or he'll continue with his current cowardly ways.

      April 29, 2013 at 10:58 pm |
  10. Religions

    Look at neurotheology it's about all you're going to find..or it's all I've found.

    April 29, 2013 at 7:12 pm |
  11. Religions

    Science is science religions are just speculation and opinion. I don't think the two belong in the same wheelhouse really but if you insist on comparing and contrasting then your going to come up with zilch every time.

    April 29, 2013 at 7:11 pm |
  12. ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

    As the Good LORD GOD of universe, truth absolute commanded, HE CASED BODY OF ADAM FROM CLAY, AND THAN I BREATHED SPIRIT IN TO STATUE OF ADAM, Adam means, , start to breath, he had life of his own. It takes liquid and matter to do casting of any form. May be it is too hard for hindu atheist, dumb, deaf and blind self centered by faith to realize.

    April 29, 2013 at 7:04 pm |
    • Religions

      This may come as a shock to you but in Hinduism there is the idea of a supreme diety also. Many features of most of the worlds religions share commonalities. Look at what is the same instead of what's different. It won't make you convert but it might ease your fears about some things.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:08 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      They adapted it after taking beating from Buddha in 3rd century BC, and Buddha learned it from 10 tribes of Israel, slaves of Assyrians, defeated by Persians and their migration to Baluchistan and Afghanistan. hindu secular crooks self centered priest of hinduism, demoted themselves from god hood to Brahman, blessed ones, but they still claim to be above themselves to be above every one in their hinduism, racism.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm |
    • STFU

      control your internet farts, Mohammad !!!

      April 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      your report abuse button is failing you, hindu secular, ignorant self centered.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:36 pm |
    • STFU

      shut up you pressure cooker wannabe boy,

      April 29, 2013 at 7:45 pm |
    • G to the T

      Again – not sure where you get these wacky definitions but "Adam" is Hebrew word for "man".

      April 30, 2013 at 12:15 pm |
  13. Salero21

    Atheism is stupidity in Full bloom. 😛

    April 29, 2013 at 6:43 pm |
    • Answer

      If that lie helps you to sleep. Sure.

      April 29, 2013 at 6:47 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      oh do explain why salt shaker.

      April 29, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
    • ISLAM FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONSTI TUTION

      Worth of a Zoo, home town of hindu primates, ignorant secular s, self centered by nature.

      April 29, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
  14. Chad

    @Santa "If by reason you mean design, why does there have to be a reason?
    @Chad "because evidence of design points to a designer"

    ======
    @Santa "I the odds against human life may (or may not) be improbably high; that is irrelevant as it clearly happened (so they can't be impossible odds)"
    @Chad "you are assuming a premise in your conclusion, therefore making a fallacious argument.

    Begging the question is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion

    Premise: "as it clearly happened" you are assuming that a purely naturally caused origin of life occurred in making your conclusion that life was created purely naturally.

    =====
    @santa "There is no evidence that a god was involved since the Big Bang so why suppose that a god caused the Big Bang?"
    @Chad "A. it is a false statement to say that there is no evidence, you have the origin of life, Jesus Christ, Jewish nation, personal experience of billions of people

    B. Even IF there were no evidence post the Big Bang, you simply can not extrapolate that to the origin of the universe. That's like claiming, "well, I see no watch maker standing around making this watch work, so there's no reason to think that a watchmaker created it in the first place"

    C. It is meta-physically impossible for non-being to create being. A non-natural causal agent must have been involved in the origin of the universe.

    April 29, 2013 at 6:36 pm |
    • Answer

      Just bring out your 'Rachel' to make yourself feel better.

      April 29, 2013 at 6:41 pm |
    • lionlylamb

      As the atomized cosmos began coalescing, the celestial cosmos emerged. In time, and upon many unknowable places of the celestial realm, cellular cosmologies began to rise up from the depths of the atomized chasms, some to become as intelligent cellular structures of cosmologic order. Hence was this earth made manifested with all mannerisms of atomized cellular cosmologies with mankind being the last chasm of atomized cellular consequences. The Triune makeup within the chasms of the cosmological confines dare I say needs structured relevancy perchance the Gods?

      April 29, 2013 at 6:59 pm |
    • In Santa we trust

      Chad,
      What evidence of design?
      It is not a fallacious argument – I am a human and I exist so life originated and has evolved. We have incontravertible evidence of evolution and plausible explanations for the origin of life and there is no evidence that either involve a god.
      Origin of life, Jesus Christ, Jewish nation, personal experience of billions of people are not evidence of a god.

      It's the same old dance – you claim a god with only its holy book as "proof" but you have no other evidence for your extraordinary claim. Yet you reject other religions which make similar claims for their god(s) also with no evidence.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:06 pm |
    • Chad

      @Santa "What evidence of design?"

      Fine Tuning of the universe
      In the past 30 or 40 years, scientists have been astonished to find that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for the existence of building blocks of life. Constants such as gravitational constant have been found, the variation of which to even the smallest degree, would have rendered the universe utterly incapable of supporting life.

      "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." - Paul Davies

      "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the mas ses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life - Stephen Hawking

      : "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature - like the charge on the electron - then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop." Dr. Dennis Scania, Cambridge University Observatories

      "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all." - Dr. David D. Deutsch, Insti tute of Mathematics, Oxford University:

      "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly. You see," Davies adds, "even if you dismiss man as a chance happening, the fact remains that the universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life - almost contrived - you might say a 'put-up job.'" - Dr. Paul Davies, Adelaide University:

      "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars - Sir Fred Hoyle

      "how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quanti ties had slightly different values." - Dr. Gerald Schroeder, former professor of physics at M.I.T.

      beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. - Professor Steven Weinberg

      The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side." - Michael Turner, astrophysicist University of Chicago

      the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding, namely an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros!" That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros. Penrose continues, "Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe - and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure - we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment." - Roger Penrose University of Oxford

      April 29, 2013 at 7:13 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @Chad

      Same list, same quote mines, and the same dishonesty. Get some new material, this is just getting pathetic.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:17 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      Origin of Life, Jesus Christ, the Jewish nation, ... "fine tuned" universe,...
      At best these things are unexplained, but they are not evidence for something, unless you can show how that something caused these things or empirical evidence that they did cause them to happen.

      You said earlier that 'We exist therefore evolution occured' was a fallacy, isn't 'the universe is "fine tuned" therefore. god did it' the same fallacy?

      April 29, 2013 at 7:24 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      @ME II

      Chad doesn't think he is capable of committing fallacies. He's much to arrogant to think he could be wrong about anything.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:26 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "Origin of Life, Jesus Christ, the Jewish nation, ... "fine tuned" universe,...
      At best these things are unexplained, but they are not evidence for something, unless you can show how that something caused these things or empirical evidence that they did cause them to happen.
      @Chad "no,
      A. They support the theistic premise, so they are evidence for. End of story. Evidence need not prove the case or setting the dispute to be considered evidence.

      B. How does one provide "empirical evidence" of the origin of the universe for example. It is impossible by definition.

      C. What WOULD you consider empirical evidence that God created the universe? (dont know why I continue to ask this question, it never gets answered.. and I'm the one continuously accused of being disingenuous.. go figure)

      ====
      @ME II "You said earlier that 'We exist therefore evolution occurred' was a fallacy,
      @Chad "sort of, but I know what you mean to say. What I said was "We exist therefor we were created naturally" is a fallacy.

      ====
      @ME II "isn't 'the universe is "fine tuned" therefore. god did it' the same fallacy?"
      @Chad "That is never my argument, which is always "fine tuning is evidence of a design mechanism, a designer.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:36 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      Thank you for that perfect example of my post Chad.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:41 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad
      "no,
      A. They support the theistic premise, so they are evidence for. End of story. Evidence need not prove the case or setting the dispute to be considered evidence."

      I agree that evidence need not make the entire case, but it must make some point in favor of your premise. How does an unexplained orgin of the universe make some point in favor of the theistic premise?

      "B. How does one provide 'empirical evidence' of the origin of the universe for example. It is impossible by definition."

      Observation and experimentation. The CMB is empirical evidence of the Big Bang. Show us evidence of the word with which your God spoke the universe into existence.

      "C. What WOULD you consider empirical evidence that God created the universe? (dont know why I continue to ask this question, it never gets answered.. and I'm the one continuously accused of being disingenuous.. go figure)"

      God doing it again would be sufficient.
      It's your premise... are you admitting that there is no evidence for God creating the universe?

      ====
      "sort of, but I know what you mean to say. What I said was "We exist therefor we were created naturally" is a fallacy."

      Fair enough.

      ====
      "That is never my argument, which is always "fine tuning is evidence of a design mechanism, a designer."

      How is fine tuning "evidence of a design mechanism, a designer"?
      Remember, 'it must have happened, otherwise we wouldn't exist' is a fallacy.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:52 pm |
    • I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV

      The sentient puddle (by Douglas Adams)

      "This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"

      April 29, 2013 at 9:03 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II "I agree that evidence need not make the entire case, but it must make some point in favor of your premise. How does an unexplained orgin of the universe make some point in favor of the theistic premise?"
      @Chad "you are minimizing what we know:
      A. the universe had an origin, a beginning. As it is meta-physically impossible for non-being to create being, we know that a non-natural agent stands in causal relationship.
      B. The premise that the God of Israel created the universe coincides precisely with that. God, according to Judeo/Christian doctrine, exists outside of time, and created the universe.
      C. If, for example, it was shown that the universe had always existed(as was thought up until the '50's), then that would directly refute the premise that the God of Israel created the universe.

      =====
      @ME II "Observation and experimentation. The CMB is empirical evidence of the Big Bang. Show us evidence of the word with which your God spoke the universe into existence."
      @Chad "A. CMB is evidence of inflation, not creation.
      B. By definition the non-natural is not empirically testable.
      C. Logical positivism is dead
      D. Show me some empirical evidence that the universe was created naturally! 🙂
      can't do it. It's an impossible ask.

      ===
      @Chad "What WOULD you consider empirical evidence that God created the universe? (dont know why I continue to ask this question, it never gets answered.. and I'm the one continuously accused of being disingenuous.. go figure)"
      @ME II "God doing it again would be sufficient."
      @Chad "A. cute.. but silly.. IF God "did it again" it would be another universe and we would be unaware of it.
      B. It isnt required to do an act twice to have done it once.
      C. so, same question: "What WOULD you consider empirical evidence that God created the universe?"
      E. remember, the question is what evidence, that He created (past tense) the universe. one cant of course say "well, if you additionally do 'X' or "Y', otherwise you didnt do the first thing.. fallacious.

      ===
      @ME II "It's your premise... are you admitting that there is no evidence for God creating the universe?"
      @Chad "lol, no, simply illustrating that the atheist will not accept ANYTHING as evidence. They have decided before hand that God doesnt exist. That's why you atheists avoid that question at all costs (and they call me disingenuous.. go figure..)

      ====
      @ME II "How is fine tuning "evidence of a design mechanism, a designer"?
      @Chad "Q. What is the probability of the extraordinarily low entropy initial state of our universe given an entirely natural causal agent?
      A. Zero, it is meta-physically impossible for non-being to create being

      Q. What is the probability of the extraordinarily low entropy initial state of our universe given an non-natural causal agent that isnt the God of Israel?
      A. Dunno, less than 100% though as this non-natural causal agent is not a mind and has no intent or purpose for our universe.

      Q. What is the probability of the extraordinarily low entropy initial state of our universe given the existence of the God of Israel?
      A. 100%

      April 29, 2013 at 9:51 pm |
    • Chad

      @GOPer

      see "begging the question" fallacy

      April 29, 2013 at 9:52 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      And chad ignores his dishonesty and continues to try and prove himself right merely by reasserting refuted points ad nauseum.

      April 29, 2013 at 9:54 pm |
    • Science

      Dear Chad and topher ................oops can not forget Bill Deacon

      Holy Hallucinations 35

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XTCRdC8Dlo&w=640&h=360]

      April 29, 2013 at 10:31 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad,
      "As it is meta-physically impossible for non-being to create being..."

      Just curious, do you have evidence or logical proof of this?

      "The premise that the God of Israel created the universe coincides precisely with that."

      I disagree, but that is another discussion. Stipulating it for the sake of argument, many naturalistic hypotheses also coincide with it. Does that fact not support them as well?
      In fact many concepts of "creation" concepts may be consistent with "a begining", if there actually was one, but they may be so va.gue as to be untestable.
      It is in the details that most lose coherence with the evidence, which is where I disagree with your claim of "coincides precisely".

      =========
      "A. CMB is evidence of inflation, not creation."

      I said Big Bang model, not creation.

      "B. By definition the non-natural is not empirically testable."

      While the supposed supernatural is not testable, its effects on the natural would be. Yet, there is still no evidence of the supernatural. Odd that?

      "C. Logical positivism is dead"

      Meh.

      "D. Show me some empirical evidence that the universe was created naturally! 🙂
      can't do it. It's an impossible ask."

      As I think you said before, Nice try! 🙂
      You're attempting to deflect to focus away from your lack of evidence.

      I'm saying that it is currently unexplained. There are hypotheses for naturalistic explainantions, but they do not have, and may never have, evidence to support them.
      Claiming it is impossible, may be premature. (see link below)

      ========
      "A. cute.. but silly.. IF God "did it again" it would be another universe and we would be unaware of it."

      Are you sure? How do you know that a "nearby" universe would have an effect on ours? There are actually hypotheses of just this scenario. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110809-other-universes-multiverse-big-bang-space-science-microwave/

      "B. It isnt required to do an act twice to have done it once.'

      Argh! Who said anything about "required"? It may not be neccessary, but it would be sufficient.

      "one cant of course say 'well, if you additionally do 'X' or 'Y", otherwise you didnt do the first thing.. fallacious."

      I did not state that. I was simply saying that a second creation would be evidence that your God was capable of such an act and as such would also lend credence to the concept that he did it for this universe. I did not say that lack of such evidence would be evidence of a lack of ever doing it. That was your projection.

      Remember that we started this with the understanding that evidence may not make the entire case, therefore, my two examples, I think, are reasonable evidence for, though perhaps not entirely complete.
      1) Evidence of the "Word" used to create the universe, for example, "echos" of the Word in the CMB.
      2) Your supposed God doing it again.

      Why am I doing your work for you?

      =======
      "That's why you atheists avoid that question at all costs (and they call me disingenuous.. go figure..)"

      Have I avoided it? On the contrary, I think I've provided an appropriate response. Also, I don't usually claim to be an "atheist", especially to apologists since they tend to presume too many thoughts for me when I do that.

      ========
      "What is the probability of the extraordinarily low entropy initial state of our universe given ..."

      I disagree that we have any way at all of determining the "probability" of the "initial state of our universe", if such a "state" is even meaningful. We simply don't know enough to determine this.

      "... given the existence of the God of Israel?
      A. 100%"

      A bit presumptuous no? Couldn't your God have created it otherwise?

      April 30, 2013 at 11:08 am |
    • fintastic

      blah blah blah blah... long boring paragraph after long boring paragraph of crap, ... more blah blah blah...

      ........ still no evidence that "god did it".... still ZERO evidence that god exists........

      April 30, 2013 at 12:42 pm |
    • Paul

      The universe is not fine tuned for life, that is absurd. Life has been fine tuned to survive in the universe through evolution. If the universe was fine tuned for life we would find it everywhere instead of just on one planet in one solar system.

      April 30, 2013 at 1:13 pm |
  15. Bob

    This is very simple to me. Science=the teachings of men. Bible=the teachings of God. Choose whom you will believe. Its really that simple. When people speak of metaphors rather than "literal interpretation" or a day is really not a day in Genesis, these are simply contortions of the person who is trying to force fit The Word of God into the teachings of men. Guess what? It doesn't fit. You can't have both. Stop trying to compromise! It is literal, Jesus referred to Genesis all the time as literal. Stop the double speak. Choose whom you will believe!

    April 29, 2013 at 6:35 pm |
    • Dave8582

      @Bob

      Ummm... about that literal Jesus: Jesus was an urban legend. There is no proof...not a lick... that a Messiah ever was or ever will be born. No Contemporary historians wrote of him. No one bothered to create a likeness of him. No one even described what he looked like.

      Cheers!

      April 29, 2013 at 6:51 pm |
    • tallulah13

      So what about all the other gods and the other holy stories and beliefs? They are just as valid as the bible. If you create an equation of reason vs the supernatural, you must include even those supernatural beliefs that you don't believe.

      April 30, 2013 at 12:41 am |
    • Bible Contradictions

      Good deeds

      Matt 5:16 "In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (NIV)

      Matt 6:3-4 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (NIV)

      May 1, 2013 at 3:14 pm |
    • Bob

      Bible Contra, are you really citing those 2 verses as contradictions? You really are spiritually challenged. Jesus said let your light shine so that people will see your good deeds and glorify God. Don't you tell them about it, just do it. The second verse reinforces the first. This is what happens when you read from a book of men who hate God. Better to read from the books that come from Him.

      May 1, 2013 at 6:56 pm |
  16. lionlylamb

    Can man create from the dustiness anything to be a living formation of Life? Can man create the very finite mechanisms needed for life to become a living being? Are not people but a product made whole and complete by the unseen and the unknowable forces of creations' manifestations? Where were mankind's souls in the very beginning moments of Celestial Creation's manifestations being held? All that is celestial was once a part of the atomized cosmos. Come the death of any celestial life formation their psychic essence is given back to the atomized cosmos to once again become a part and parcel of the atomized chasm of cosmological wonders of which those left behind might never begin to fully fathom.

    April 29, 2013 at 6:30 pm |
  17. catholic engineer

    I would predict some things about Dawkins movie. First, he'll insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. That's the only interpretation he can argue against. In fact, Genesis has many layers that have to be taken apart like an onion. St. Augustine of Hippo could not become a Christian until he realized that much of scripture is not literal but metaphorical. Dawkins is about 1700 years behind Augustine in this matter. Second, Dawkins will talk about the many religions. "Gee, there are so many. Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Christian." He will not investrigate the innate religious impulse which underlies all religions. Thirdly, he will ignore the fact that the 20th century was the most godless and bloody and scientific period in history.

    April 29, 2013 at 5:59 pm |
    • Science

      Dover Trial Transcripts............................................. FACTS.

      Below are the complete transcripts from the Dover Trial. Thanks to our friends at the National Center for Science Education for helping us fill in the missing transcripts.

      http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 6:02 pm |
    • ME II

      @catholic engineer,
      If one takes Genesis as a metaphor, it is much easier to reconcile, but then how does one determine what, in the rest of the Bible, is metaphor and what isn't?

      April 29, 2013 at 6:04 pm |
    • Science

      Gravity wins lCE.............splat goes the fairy in the sky

      Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet

      Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 6:26 pm |
    • hawaiiguest

      The age old "The bible says what I want it to say when I want it to say it. Something is metaphor only if I say it is, and all the other denominations are wrong for the same reason".
      Truly a pathetic cop-out.

      April 29, 2013 at 7:30 pm |
    • tallulah13

      Human history has always been bloody. It just gets more press now.

      And what exactly are your qualifications, that you get to change the word of god? Did god speak to you and tell you that the translation of the bible was wrong? Or are you just desperately trying to cover up the fact that the word of god directly contradicts reality?

      April 30, 2013 at 12:47 am |
  18. lol??

    For the science lives and god is dead crowd, you didn't want to talk about the speed of light so tell us, is the Comet ISON gonna fling asteroids at the earth with its draggin' tail? Gotta keep you focused.

    April 29, 2013 at 5:43 pm |
    • Science

      Gravity wins lol??.............splat goes the fairy in the sky

      Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet

      Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 5:47 pm |
  19. Science

    A little backfill on those stoney irom meteorites !.

    Grains of Sand from Ancient Supernova Found in Meteorites: Supernova May Have Been the One That Triggered the Formation of the Solar System

    Apr. 19, 2013 — It's a bit like learning the secrets of the family that lived in your house in the 1800s by examining dust particles they left behind in cracks in the floorboards.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422111246.htm

    April 29, 2013 at 5:31 pm |
    • Science

      With gravity mixed in = SPLAT !

      Gravity wins lol??.............splat goes the fairy in the sky

      Einstein's Gravity Theory Passes Toughest Test Yet

      Apr. 25, 2013 — A strange stellar pair nearly 7,000 light-years from Earth has provided physicists with a unique cosmic laboratory for studying the nature of gravity. The extremely strong gravity of a massive neutron star in orbit with a companion white dwarf star puts competing theories of gravity to a test more stringent than any available before.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130425142250.htm

      April 29, 2013 at 6:00 pm |
  20. Russ

    Two incredibly germane videos...

    Note well @ 2:15 mark – fellow atheists panning this argument from Richard Dawkins & Co.

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK0mjVcmcIo&w=640&h=360]

    Science cannot speak to metaphysics because it *presupposes* it.
    Scientism, however, is not science – but putting ultimate FAITH in science.
    Dawkins & Krauss conflate the two... and that's why they speak *religiously* about science.

    [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPeyJvXU68k&w=640&h=360]

    April 29, 2013 at 5:26 pm |
    • Science

      NASA: Mars could have supported life

      Star Dust we are .

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWdU_px9ApE&w=640&h=360]

      Peace

      April 29, 2013 at 6:57 pm |
    • mzh

      Dear Science:

      I would be amazed looking at my own-self... how things are being taken well care... who can create this systems running in each and every one of us who has a soul... i guess very few of mankind recognizes it... that does not mean i am against the discovery of science... it is also a huge blessings that this things are being discovered to make human life easier... but the real problem is for some human, this discovers taking them away from believing in The Creator who created human in the mothers womb where the carrier had not access to do anything other than feeding herself...

      Peace!!!

      April 29, 2013 at 8:39 pm |
    • Science

      Dear mzh.........sole is on bottom of shoe can be replaced or repaired .

      Peace

      April 29, 2013 at 8:47 pm |
    • mzh

      Dear Science:

      I have not seen any human came back to the life after death, have you?

      Or i am not sure what did you mean by that...

      Peace to you all...

      April 29, 2013 at 8:56 pm |
    • mzh

      Death is nothing but the separation of soul from the box...

      With due respect you sounds like a smart person and use your intellects, let me share this with you and to the world... that the Quran also teaches that the human box made from the dust of the earth and the soul was given to the clot of blood (while the sperm and ovum gets acquainted), so when the death comes to any human, the box remains in the earth and no one knows where does the soul goes... and the box decomposed or burned or eaten by animals and this box will be brought back and the soul will be given and then will have that human stand for the accountability...

      Peace!!!

      April 29, 2013 at 9:02 pm |
    • Science

      Holy Hallucinations 35

      [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XTCRdC8Dlo&w=640&h=360]

      April 29, 2013 at 9:13 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Next entry »
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.