LOL....there is none......sounds kind of appropriate for this
"discussion"....LOL
-----Original Message-----
From: computersupport%40yahoogroups.com">computersupport
yahoogroups.com
[mailto: computersupport%40yahoogroups.com">computersupportyahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Elaine Brown
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 1:30 PM
To: computersupport%40yahoogroups.com">computersupportyahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Computer Support] Why
I thought this was a computer support group??? Let's get back to the group
purpose, take your soapbox with you elsewhere Mr. Yusuf Kuzu !!! Where is
the group leader here???? Elaine
On 1/20/07, Trudy < trudyc%40prodigy.net">trudycprodigy.net> wrote:
>
> "Why" >>When will we be able to respect each other?
> I hope you aren't holding your breath!
>
> -------Original Message-------
>;
> From: ShunkW
> Date: 01/20/07 14:46:44
> To: computersupport%40yahoogroups.com">computersupportyahoogroups.com <computersupport%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Computer Support] Why
>
> Not that this is the place for this discussion but you seem to totally
> misunderstand science. It proves that many things happen because of no
> reason at all. Since you started with an amazingly illogical supposition
> then any conclusions drawn are of course mute.
>
> If anything you just disproved your supposition that there is a
> "reason"…..
>
> Sw
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: computersupport%40yahoogroups.com">computersupportyahoogroups.com <computersupport%40yahoogroups.com>
>
[mailto: computersupport%40yahoogroups.com">computersupportyahoogroups.com<;computersupport%40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Yusuf Kuzu
>; Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 1:06 PM
> To: computersupport%40yahoogroups.com">computersupportyahoogroups.com <computersupport%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Computer Support] Why
>
> I do not believe in something like a god, because of the reasons stated
> below:
> 1)In science everything must have a reason. So what should the reason of
> our
> creation be ? Most people say god is testing us. When god is almighty he
> should
> know the test results, why is he testing when he already knows the results
> ?
> So
> that could not be the reason. It may also be said 'to prove his
> almightyness'-,
> but the question here is 'to whom ?'. So when there is no reason there
> could
> not
> be a result. Our creation could only be by chance, but then there is no
> god
> needed. Most people are saying that this chance is very very low. Yes
> indeed,
> but this chance must have been occured so that we are now able to say
> this.
> If
> this was not the case then we would not be able to say this, but in this
>; case
>; also everything is normal. If your mother and father didn't do that thing
> exact
> in this period (48 hours)(You know..) You would not exist, but it would
> not
> matter, because nobody would notice that you do not exist, because that is
>
> normal. So if we didn't exist who would notice
> it....
> 2) Most religions say we are ongoing a test; when we do good things we
> will
>; go
> to heaven (Result 1), when we do bad things we will go to hell (Result 2).
>
> Also
>; in buddism, there is a result which will affect our next life (lives). In
> a
> test
>; there are parameters (inputs) which could affect the test results
> (outputs).
> When all the initial parameters are the same the result is also to be the
> same
>; (logic). Or let's say it in other words, when there are two or more
>; results,
> normally we look what has changed (parameters--inputs). For example pure
>; water
> (purity is a parameter, because with increasing salt concentration the
> boiling
> point also increases) has a boiling point at 100°C when the air pressure
> is
> 1
> atm (here the air pressure is another parameter, because with increasing
> air
> pressure the boiling point decreases). Scientific tests could only be
> made,
> because the test are repeatable. When you repeat this test 1000 times you
> will
>; get 1000 times the same result (boiling point =
> 100°C) (Otherwise nobody would thrust science). If this is not the case
>; you
> have to look what is wrong (maybe pressure or purity). This test is a
> quite
> simple one to illustrate what a 'parameter' is and what a 'reults' is. Of
> course
> there are much more complex tests with much more parameters, but the logic
>
> is
> the same; with exact the same parameters you will observe the same result
> or
> visa versus. Now lets come back to the big test:
> For our example the initial time (time 0) is our birth, the parameters
> could
> be
> intelligence, cirstances, good will (bad will), patience and so on, but
> let's
> come to the results; there are two possible results heaven or hell. When
>; there
> are two different results, there must! be different initial parameters,
> which
> are of course set when we are born. That means when there is a god, he (by
>
> the
> way why he not she !!! Think about it.) has already set what will be the
> result,
> then what could we change ? Nothing, because this would also have been set
>
> at
> the beginning. So this would mean that there is an unequality at the
> beginning.
> That is simply not fair. Would you believe in an unfair god ?
> 3) Another contradiction between Religion and Science is the evolution of
> the
> human race. Science proves that we and also apes evolved from the same
>; kind
>; of
> species, whereas religion insists on its old views. Science is built on
> facts
> and proves, but religion fails what is concerning proves. Everybody could
> ask
> what these proves are. Here are a few of scientific methods, which prove
> the
> evolution of us:
> a) Protein presipitation method: In this method near 'relatives' give
>; little
> presipitation, while far relatives give much presipitaion. Most
>; presipitation is
> observed with animals like mice, while with apes only little presipitation
>
> is
> obtained.
> b) Genetics: Our DNA is 99.9 % equal with the apes DNA, whereas with other
>
> animals this ratio is much lower.
> c) Antropolgy: Many skeleton foundings prove that there are other species