The Signs of God's Existence

[SelfD]

I challenge any atheist in here to watch this.
can you refute this? I think not

[SelfD]

The golden ratio 1.618

Around 1200, mathematician Leonardo Fibonacci discovered the unique properties of the Fibonacci sequence. This sequence ties directly into the Golden ratio because if you take any two successive Fibonacci numbers, their ratio is very close to the Golden ratio. As the numbers get higher, the ratio becomes even closer to 1.618. For example, the ratio of 3 to 5 is 1.666. But the ratio of 13 to 21 is 1.625. Getting even higher, the ratio of 144 to 233 is 1.618. These numbers are all successive numbers in the Fibonacci sequence.

[Xildiiid]

Can you give us a short presentation about the documentary.

[DR-YALAXOOW]

iam believer myself. but i would say Athiest and athiesm would not exist if God comes out Life just view minutes and say

yes i do exist, i created you and yes after you die you will come back second Life, so you humans be carefull and do right thing. be good.

if that happen iam 100% there will be no athiest on this planet.

[SelfD]

Can you give us a short presentation about the documentary.

its a collection of scientific findings, debates and interviews by well known academics in the field of science that give evidence to a intelligent design ( by God ) in the universe.

[Xildiiid]

Can you give us a short presentation about the documentary.

its a collection of scientific findings, debates and interviews by well known academics in the field of science that give evidence to a intelligent design ( by God ) in the universe.

Interesting, I'll watch it tomorrow when I have some spare time.

[Basra-]

I just finished watching half of it. I forwarded the other half. Same ol' BS argument about God vs Godlessness. Both Theists and Atheists have a dilemma. None of them Can prove God exists. The Scientists and their so called fans, the atheists-- have orgasmic episodes over the big "BANG' theory, in which there is not a single scientific proof of it. The believers or the Theists having nothing on their side but a number of Holly books that list down exactly everything to do with God. At least, with the believers-- u know what u r getting into. First, U believe. Second, U believe. U r told Prophets had to be sent to convince the ever suspicious and stubborn humans. (If only that would happen in our life time, a lot of questions will be answered) Can the same be said about Evolution or the Scientists whose offspring is atheists????

I believe this universe talk and quantum physic regalia talk will one day serve to give us information, just like Darwin did with his essay and excellent observation of nature. And of course, these Big Bang theory and the quantum physic fans will create a following just as Darwin did, and generations will argue back and forth-- and the world will remain similar to ours today. Believers Vs. Non Believers.

By the way, Evolution is also, grossly misunderstood. Darwin was not an atheist. He was agnostic. Meaning, he had doubts, or his days where he believed less than other days were many than few. He was deeply curious and questioning continuously, a trait not conducive to a believer. Here is his quote where he declares he is not an atheist.


“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)



Evolution should be no more than a scientific essay or literature on the brilliance of nature at its best. A Nature that was created by a supreme being in the name of ALLAAH!!! swt! ALAAAHU AKBAAAR!

[Kukri]

I just finished watching half of it. I forwarded the other half. Same ol' BS argument about God vs Godlessness. Both Theists and Atheists have a dilemma. None of them Can prove God exists. The Scientists and their so called fans, the atheists-- have orgasmic episodes over the big "BANG' theory, in which there is not a single scientific proof of it. The believers or the Theists having nothing on their side but a number of Holly books that list down exactly everything to do with God. At least, with the believers-- u know what u r getting into. First, U believe. Second, U believe. U r told Prophets had to be sent to convince the ever suspicious and stubborn humans. (If only that would happen in our life time, a lot of questions will be answered) Can the same be said about Evolution or the Scientists whose offspring is atheists????

I believe this universe talk and quantum physic regalia talk will one day serve to give us information, just like Darwin did with his essay and excellent observation of nature. And of course, these Big Bang theory and the quantum physic fans will create a following just as Darwin did, and generations will argue back and forth-- and the world will remain similar to ours today. Believers Vs. Non Believers.

By the way, Evolution is also, grossly misunderstood. Darwin was not an atheist. He was agnostic. Meaning, he had doubts, or his days where he believed less than other days were many than few. He was deeply curious and questioning continuously, a trait not conducive to a believer. Here is his quote where he declares he is not an atheist.


“In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)



Evolution should be no more than a scientific essay or literature on the brilliance of nature at its best. A Nature that was created by a supreme being in the name of ALLAAH!!! swt! ALAAAHU AKBAAAR!

Basra

how are you macaanto? babaasir bah futada kaa so baxday aan maqlay walaal ee Allah ha ku caafiyo.

Get well soon

[Basra-]

kukri aka selfd aka atheist


Walaal, lose weight, then we can talk.

[Reacher]

Debates flare up over politics and God in our office sometimes. Yesterday was another occasion. So, I got this e-mail after I thought I was done debating:



"Hi, ---------

To illustrate my point regarding evolution, I have a challenge for you which if you can't meet, will demonstrate that my belief is more credible than yours.

Find an alternative falsifiable explanatory model that is more powerful in explaining why we've observed the genetic evidence, the anatomical homologies, the fossil evidence, the geographic distribution, etc., other than the modern evolutionary synthesis. If you can't find such a model, then you must concede that the evolutionary model which I agree with is more scientifically credible than your alternative model. Do that for me and I will take your position seriously and admit that you have a defensible position on the issue. If you do not, then you will prove my point that the evolutionary synthesis is indeed the most probable, even if it doesn't "make sense" to you in some way. Quantum mechanics doesn't make sense to a lot of people including many physicists, but it is still the most highly accepted model because it fits the evidence better than any other model that has been presented thus far. Having it "make sense", hardly matters as long as the explanatory power is there. When it makes sense, but the explanatory power is absent or is incompatible with the physical evidence we've obtained thus far, it is an unreliable theory (such as creation for example, which has little or no evidence to support it). Please do this for me, find an alternative model that explains the physical findings we've found so far better than the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Peace,"






He is waiting for answer from me. I saw him this morning but promised we will continue may be later.

[Thuganomics]

Yalaxow how come you always appear when Islam is the subject.Kinda like Luis and the Ogaden war

[DR-YALAXOOW]

yes i know but this topic is not about religion.. its about the existens of the Big God !! aamiin.. yes iam like luis cuz everybody has sudden Subject kaasoo qofku xiiseeyo..