 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / May 2008Is My Reasoning Correct? No Lame Replies, Please
INTRODUCTION: I was skeptical about the existence of God, but no more now. SECULAR EVIDENCE: That proto-DNA/RNA/PNA/TNA/GNA, which emerged about 4 billion years ago, as fossil records indicate, has to meet the following 4 conditions, (1) ALL OF THEM (2) SIMULTANEOUSLY AND (3) WITHIN ONE GENERATION (only God can do this), or the proto-DNA/RNA/PNA/TNA/GNA is dead (ref: en.wikipedia.com): -different organic compounds joined in exact helical order. -have a complete reproductive system. -have a complete DNA/RNA/PNA/TNA/GNA-repair system. -have a complete metabolic system. Chimps are 98.8% human, not because humans evolved out of proto-chimp, but because humans share biological functions with Chimps more than any other living thing. Evolution is "theory", not a proved "law". Famous Scientist Crick proposed that the proto-DNA/RNA couldn't have developed on Earth, but must have come from the space; but this doesn't solve the problem, about the origin of the proto-DNA/RNA. RELIGIOUS EVIDENCE: All Major Religions teach: -Oneness of God, (yes, hindus believe in ONE GOD, but many forms of that god) and -Messengership i.e. God communicated with humanity through messengers, and that -Books/oral-words were revealed to his messengers. Muhammad is the last of the Messengership chain; Jews call him their "warrior messenger", Christians call him "that prophet", Hindus call him "Kalki Avatar". Example Hindu Messengership: "Just an illiterate man with the epithet Teacher, Muhammad by name, came along with his companions. Raja (Bhoja in a vision) to that Great Diva, that denizen of Arabia, purifying with the Ganges water and with the five things of cow offered sandal wood and pay worship to him. O denizen of Arabia and Lord of the holies, to thee is my adoration. O thou who hast found many ways and means to destroy the devils of the world. O pure one from among the illiterates, O sinless one, the spirit of the truth and absolute master, to thee is my adoration. Accept me at thy feet", Bhavishya Purna Parv 3, Khand 3, Adhya 3, Shalok 5-8. Bible is consistent, i.e. the last messenger will only come from Arabia, not elsewhere; if Bible was a word of man, then Bible would have all spectrum of prophesies. Carbon dating proves that current bible existed before Muhammad, i.e. muslims have not entered the Muhammadan messengership into bible. For a complete list of Parsi/Hindu/Biblical Messengerships: www.awais-nazir.biz CONCLUSION: -God communicated with humanity through Messengership. Current/last Messengership is Muhammadan. -God send new Messengerships, until previous Messengership corrupts beyond recognition. -Three Majors of the previous Messengership include: Hindu/Jewish/ Christian. -Sincerity without Messengership knowledge is OK. But if one knowingly rejects the messengership, then will God punish. RELEASING THE HIJACKED MUHAMMADAN/LAST MESSENGERSHIP: I know how original Islam is hijacked by the arab culture. In the remainig book of mine, (www.awais-nazir.biz), I will show how Islam is the simplest of all, including: -Attaining higher of the two paradises. -The story of humanity, from Adam till now; including Humanity Eras, Science Periods, Messengership Eras. -The Story of Grave Life, Day of Resurrection, and Paradise/Hell admission. -Celebrating Birthdays/etc is Optional. -Prefering either of right/left hand, is Optional. -Fate is God's simulation, i.e. as mother can predict the behavior of her child. -Moral issues, i.e. miserliness/extravagency/lying/etc are Optional; they should not be handled by religion, but by secular measures, because whenever religion involves in something then it can't be solved. -Smoking is Optional. -Doing 'Salam' To Non-muslims, Is Optional. -Music/dogs/etc are Optional, to hear/keep. -Salat is not 5, but 2 times a day, i.e. sunrise/sunset. -There is no usury/interest, if the exchange is in different commodities. -Women Leading Salat/Country, Is Optional. -Keeping Beard, Is Optional. -Clothes are secular, not religious, matter. -Stealing, killing, suicide, etc, are Major Sins; but Minor Sins are no sin. -Calamities Fall Equally On Believers/Nonbelievers. For a complete list: www.awais-nazir.biz I HOPE THE ABOVE INFO PROBABLY IS NERVE-WRECKING. IF ONE IS STILL NOT CONVINCED, I HOPE THAT SOMEWHERE IN HIS FUTURE LIFE, HE WILL. RATIONALITY AND SINCERITY MATTERS; NONE ELSE, INCLUDING BIAS. Complete Book: www.awais-nazir.biz. > INTRODUCTION: > > I was skeptical about the existence of God, but no more now. You offer nothing more than a lame and ignorant post - but request no lame replies? f.ck off, dipshit! > I was skeptical about the existence of God, but no more now. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > <lots of text snipped> > Evolution is "theory", not a proved "law". Yes, that's how science works: methodical right. Yes I agree there are mysteries in nature which cannot be explained yet, eventually they will be explained as our knowledge progresses. Because we cannot explain something doesn't mean we should say "see? We don't understand so it must be a miracle / a divine intervention"... I mean, people used to explain lightenings in the Sky because some god was angry right? It did appear make some sense at the time since they did not have another explanation... > -Oneness of God, (yes, hindus believe in ONE GOD, but many forms of > that god) and And romans / greek gods and egyptians gods must have been believing in one god, surely. And no, khali, muluga, ganesh or shiva aren't the same entities - at all. Also the multiplicity of the religions clearly demonstrates that they are pretty much all wrong. I mean, say you're christian. You're not going to believe the hindus malarki, the muslim books will appear nonsense, the torah will be mostly rubbish, the quakers will appear as marginals, etc. Get a grip. If all these other religions are false, the only logical conclusion is that yours must be as well. The alternative is that they are all true, and then it means you need to worship them all, and then you will get stuck in contradictions as each religion claims to be worshipping the "one true god". > -Messengership i.e. God communicated with humanity through messengers, > and that Why go through all this trouble when god could just be appearing in the sky and talking to us directly... > -Books/oral-words were revealed to his messengers. No, these are tales which were written and rewritten over time. I mean, do you really believe that a virgin woman got pregnant by the spirit of the trinity? I mean, would you believe your wife if she went away for a few month and came back telling you that she magically became pregnant by a magical spirit thing? If so, then, "god bless you" ;-) On May 27, 8:30 am, jhi...@gmail.com wrote: > > I was skeptical about the existence of God, but no more now. > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > became pregnant by a magical spirit thing? If so, then, "god bless > you" ;-) Higher power is on topic, at least for some of us.... re your last paragraph- Mary and Joseph were betrothed but not married. If you read Matthew ! and Luke you will see Jesus' genealogies linking him both to his earthly father Joseph and also to his heavenly father. Carl Jung explained the resons for the 'virgin birth' beliefs which do make sense to me- that mankind does need a female deity as well as a male one... and Mary was truly worshipped. pob bendith, many blessings, David. > that mankind does need a female deity > as well as a male one... and Mary was truly worshipped. David, when did the worship of Mary cease and why? Among what groups? On May 27, 5:11 pm, Dafydd <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > that mankind does need a female deity > as well as a male one... and Mary was truly worshipped. >David, when did the worship of Mary cease and why? Among what groups? The Goddess has always been worshipped. Sumerian hymn to Inanna - I say, "Hail!" to the Holy One who appears in the heavens! I say, "Hail" to the Holy Priestess of Heaven! I say, "Hail" to Inanna, Great Lady of Heaven. Where do you think the "HAIL" Mary's came from?? Read your bible!! Jeremiah 7: The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes of bread for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger. That is simply Inanna again, she was called the Queen of Heaven. And you can follow that down through Ishtar, which is simply the Babylonian for the earlier Summerian Inanna. On to the greek goddesses, to Cybele the mother of the Gods, Here read this - Roman devotion to Cybele ran deeply. Not coincidentally, when a Christian basilica was built over the site of a temple to Cybele to occupy the site, the sanctuary was rededicated to the Mother of God, as the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. There is only one religion that continues to worship the mother of God, as Queen of Heaven!! And they still have pagan idols also. Smile. > On May 27, 5:11 pm, Dafydd <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Smile. Thanks, but none of this addresses the questions of *who" used to worship Mary and when and why did they stop. >On May 27, 5:11 pm, Dafydd <dafyd...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >Smile. And before that there were the stone age "venus" figures, that suggest that goddess worship predates recorded history.  SignatureGrant > > that mankind does need a female deity > > as well as a male one... and Mary was truly worshipped. > > David, when did the worship of Mary cease and why? Among what groups? Well this is not my field... In Britain it happened at the time of the reformation. Elizabeth I was termed 'the virgin queen' so for a time I imagine people honoured her. The reformation occurred for other reasons of course. David. > Higher power is on topic, at least for some of us.... But it's essentially the same thing... true, there is cause and effect, the mystery of "why do things exist" since it would seem a lot more simple if nothing did... But because we cannot explain the existence of the universe, or cannot explain our own existence doesn't mean we need to invent some kind of all powerful sentient supernatural entity to explain it. I do not believe in a "higher power" simply because I have no reason to believe it. Some argue that the fact that we exist is enough, citing "cause and effect", i.e "the universe exists so something must have created it". But then when asked with the question "what created this something" thay make out that this "something" is one, eternal, and infinite. I mean, that pretty much describe the universe... think about it: -> The universe is everything (that we know or will ever know) -> The universe is eternal (because "before" the universe doesn't make sense because time didn't exist, and "after" the universe doesn't make sense because time won't exist either). -> The universe is infinite. Technically speaking it's not, but since the universe is expanding at the speed of light, our current and latest understanding of physics seem to indicate that we will never be able to get "outside" or even see past this giant "bubble", so we can't know if there may or may not be "something else" outside the universe. Unless our universe starts colliding with another one, and unless we get a clue to prove otherwise, we can assume there's nothing out there. So if you call all the matter & energy & everything that makes up the universe "god", then fine, why not, but then again why not use the word "universe" instead? If you say that what is called "universe" has been created by something else you have explained nothing since that something else essentially have the same properties as the universe, and you can't explain why that something else exists either, so you're back to square one, to the original, unsolvable mystery, which is "why does stuff exist" ? On May 27, 6:37 pm, jhi...@gmail.com wrote: > > Higher power is on topic, at least for some of us.... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > explain our own existence doesn't mean we need to invent some kind of > all powerful sentient supernatural entity to explain it. Well I agree with that. Religion and culture are pretty close buddies and what and how people believe is tied to culture, and the way they experience things. > I do not believe in a "higher power" simply because I have no reason > to believe it. Some argue that the fact that we exist is enough, > citing "cause and effect", i.e "the universe exists so something must > have created it". Well there are a lot of socalled mysteries here. I sometimes marvel at both the immensity and simplicy of things... I marvel that there is anything here at all... i do keep seeking and thinking which is healthy... and I do enjoy discussing the topic... > But then when asked with the question "what created this something" > thay make out that this "something" is one, eternal, and infinite. I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > sense because time didn't exist, and "after" the universe doesn't make > sense because time won't exist either). I am not sure if the universe is eternal... the fact that things change, that things make and things break means that everything is headed towards something... oblivion? or some sort of further synthesis... > -> The universe is infinite. Technically speaking it's not, but since > the universe is expanding at the speed of light, our current and > latest understanding of physics seem to indicate that we will never be > able to get "outside" or even see past this giant "bubble", so we > can't know if there may or may not be "something else" outside the > universe. No I cannot see how it can be infinite, though at first glance it does seem immense. Sometimes i gravitate to solipcism...lol... > Unless our universe starts colliding with another one, and unless we > get a clue to prove otherwise, we can assume there's nothing out > there. One day i realised that what we have here- life, etc. will always exist in some shape or form... > So if you call all the matter & energy & everything that makes up the > universe "god", then fine, why not, but then again why not use the > word "universe" instead? Hmmmm.... 'higher power' in the 12 step tradition is supposed to be the pivot around which our life changes. Some people just keep it simple... well that is the preferred option... I find religious doctrine a difficult thing to work healing and recovery around... I like tossing round ideas like the existence of nature and the nature of existence. > If you say that what is called "universe" has been created by > something else you have explained nothing since that something else > essentially have the same properties as the universe, and you can't > explain why that something else exists either, so you're back to > square one, to the original, unsolvable mystery, which is "why does > stuff exist" ? Thye fact that we keep working on the topic is sufficient imo... and why not kick back and just enjoy what we have here...? David. >INTRODUCTION: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >GENERATION (only God can do this), or the proto-DNA/RNA/PNA/TNA/GNA is >dead (ref: en.wikipedia.com): 1 is not a condition 2 Why did they have to come together at the same time? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis Suggests that RNA preceded DNA GNA ia a "hypothetical precursor to RNA." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycerol_nucleic_acid "TNA does not even exist in any known life form on Earth. The science says it is easier to assemble and MAY have preceded RNA." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threose_nucleic_acid "Peptide nucleic acid (PNA) is an artificially synthesized polymer similar to DNA or RNA and is used in biological research and medical treatments. PNA is not known to occur naturally." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peptide_nucleic_acid 3 Just because it is not understood or replicated yet, does not = a "god" >-different organic compounds joined in exact helical order. >-have a complete reproductive system. >-have a complete DNA/RNA/PNA/TNA/GNA-repair system. >-have a complete metabolic system. Nope, a virus for example is the simplest bundling of DNA, it has no "cell walls" no reproductive system, no digestive system, no repair system. It is entirely possible that these extra facilities were added latter. As is evidenced by the mitocondrial organelle that we have in our cells now, that were most probably "swallowed" but not "eaten". They are found in oxygen consuming organisms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondria >Chimps are 98.8% human, not because humans evolved out of proto-chimp, >but because humans share biological functions with Chimps more than >any other living thing. Ummm, not a "proto-chimp" but we share a common ancestor, some 20 million od years ago, there were no men or chimps, but there was something that both evolved from. >Evolution is "theory", not a proved "law". There are very few laws in science. The best thing about a theory is, is that it can be replaced if a better explanation can be found. So far one has not. Watson and Crick's discovery of DNA actually added a mechanism to explain evolution. >Famous Scientist Crick proposed that the proto-DNA/RNA couldn't have >developed on Earth, but must have come from the space; but this >doesn't solve the problem, about the origin of the proto-DNA/RNA. "The Wikipedia article points out that Crick later rethought his position, and became more optimistic about spontaneous generation of life on this planet." http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/10/26/sir-francis-crick-dna-and-id/ Your science is so sloppy that your argument makes no sense by the time you reach this point. SignatureGrant |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.