kepi
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by kepi on Jan 25, 2010 14:06:29 GMT -5
I'm Mira. Stuff about me: I do not like Twilight. I do not believe in god I love Harry Potter I know that the correct way to say octopus in the plural is octopoti not octopi
|
|
|
Post by Krashings on Jan 25, 2010 14:22:12 GMT -5
Hey Mira!! We have some things in common - I'm agnostic, and Twilight does certainly = death! Harry Potter is pretty cool, although I've only seen the movies. Welcome to the site!! Hope you enjoy your stay, and nice to meet you.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 25, 2010 14:44:09 GMT -5
Hey hey, welcome! I like the title of your intro. And I agree, Edward Cullen is a creepy stalker, completely overrated. Now, vampires are everywhere... there's this guy in a town by ours who ran for governor or something, and he honestly thinks he's a vampire!
|
|
kepi
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by kepi on Jan 25, 2010 16:49:40 GMT -5
Really? Very creepy!
|
|
|
Post by Sandy Pines on Jan 25, 2010 17:04:16 GMT -5
Hi Mira! I hope you enjoy these forums. And yes, death to twilight!!!
|
|
Obi
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by Obi on Jan 27, 2010 21:28:48 GMT -5
a big high five and thumb up to you kepi what you don't like about twilight? why you don't believe in god? why you love harry potter? where you learn how to say more than one octopusses? all these things will be intresting to lern about you!
|
|
|
Post by littlebopeep on Jan 28, 2010 14:34:29 GMT -5
And I agree, Edward Cullen is a creepy stalker, completely overrated. Ditto...he is really disturbing, both in the way he acts and the way he looks... lol
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Jan 28, 2010 20:15:10 GMT -5
Yeah, he is... Welcome! btw the smiley is the sarcastic one
|
|
|
Post by em on Jan 30, 2010 19:29:09 GMT -5
Woo, another Twilight non fan! Pleased to meetcha!
|
|
kepi
New Member
Posts: 9
|
Post by kepi on Feb 3, 2010 20:30:28 GMT -5
Okay to answer your questions: I hate twilight because: The writing is bad. The characters are bland Mary-Sues [perfect people] It is a bad model relationship foir young people.
i don't believe in god because: There is science that proves other ways. God was created to explain things. Now we have answers. We don't need god.
I like Harry Potter because the characters are interesting and it's well written.
|
|
|
Post by em on Feb 11, 2010 20:36:36 GMT -5
Yes, yes yes yes yes!!! I agree completely with your reasons for hating Twilight, Kepi!
|
|
sgloe7
Full Member
Check out my site at http://talkalot.netforums.us/
Posts: 125
|
Post by sgloe7 on Feb 19, 2010 13:11:57 GMT -5
totally agree with you guys! Twilight is just plain creepy!
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Feb 19, 2010 13:28:44 GMT -5
Um, There are many scientific reasons that there are a God. This is from a different forum but explains it well...
Scientific Reasons to believe in God: The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an intelligent creator. The probability against that happening by chance is very very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all practical purposes you can consider it impossible. Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to believe in the existence of God by logic alone. In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1. [The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.] There are no existing physical rules, that have been observed by science, that indicate that ordered complexity can evolve by random chance occurences. In Science there is an observed law of entropy. In all natural occurences in science, the amount of disorder increases. In other words, the physical laws that are observed in nature lead to more disorder; they do not lead to ordered complexity. The only thing observed to cause more complexity is an intelligence, of some sort deliberately assembling something together. Example: A pile of building materials stacked in a pile is hit by a tornado. When the pieces come down, they do not assemble themselves into a house. They just fall into a more disordered pile of building materials. An intelligence must deliberately assemble the materials into a house to get ordered complexity. God created the ordered complexity in the universe. There are no observed scientific processes that can account for it happening by itself. Natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species, only into a new breed or subspecies of the same animal. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another. "Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is insensibly different from zero" - Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3
"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong attempts. The same is true for living material" Ibid., p.148
"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court" Ibid., p.24
"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters. Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific." Ibid., p.130
"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it." - Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica Press,Inc.) p.138
"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain some of the observations that were not available at the time the paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather may be rooted in human nature" - Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282
"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289
"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290
The God of Israel is God. The Word of God is the King James version Bible. What God wants you to do is in the King James version New Testament.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel on Feb 19, 2010 16:00:34 GMT -5
God can not be defined very well technically or scientifically. God has always been and always will be. It has made sense to me that there must be a supreme being... the universe did not just "happen" someone or thing (a Supreme being) created it. One other thing that I would like to point out is this.
If there is no God, how did we become smarter than the animals? I mean why aren't we living off of instinct? We have mind a free will just as God does, that is why.
|
|