Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum


Forum Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Relatively Unknown

About -Alpha-

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/04/1993

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender

About My Character

  • RuneScape Status
  • RuneScape Version
  • RuneScape God
    Don't Care
  • Combat Type
  • RuneScape Clan
    I don't need one
  1. -Alpha-

    Homosexual...thingy In Religion

    I don't quite understand what you mean by that. We have free will according to God, but we are limited. How do you not have free will? You can do whatever you want. You have free choices. Even though you'll be judged for your actions, how does that stop you from doing something? But if god is omniscient, that means he knows the future, and therefore it is predetermined - including the illusion of "free choices". That is, free will conflicts with the view of an omniscient god. Free will merely means that we are not controlled, or we don't have to obey anyone or anything and we are free to do what we want...the future is simply what we will do; God knows what we will do, but we don't, free will doesn't contradict God. God didn't make our futures or predetermine them, we did through our own choices. God does not change or control the future. He simply knows what will happen He knows what will happen, so our choices are not choices. When I watch a Hamlet performance, I *know* that Ophelia will drown in a brook and the actress playing Ophelia *will* drown in a brook. If god(s) know what will happen, it means that the future is pre-determined, otherwise (he|they) wouldn't know it at all (how do you know an uncertain thing?). And who else would predetermine our future...if not god(s)? Or would there be a power even higher than (god|the gods) that determines our future? But doesn't that conflict with the omnipotence of divinity? "God does not change or control the future": wait, God is not omnipotent? Simply put, say person A is with person B in a room, person B then, for arguments sake, draws a picture, Person A knows what the picture will look like beforehand, and he knows what person B is doing and can see him, how the picture is being drawn, but he, himself does not help or interfere with person B to draw the picture, person B did this out of his free will, person A merely knew it would happen. That does not mean free will is an illusion; it means that God is omniscient. And, no, repeating myself. God did not decide what or how our futures would be like; we did through our free will. God knew, however, what choices we would pick and what would happen to us. And, again, no. God does not interfere with the future that we create through our free will, he just knows how everything will turn out and he knows the outcomes of everything we do. That does not mean that God is weak or not omnipotent, in fact omnipotence is when a deity chooses whatever it will and won't do. God chose not to interfere with our choices, but that does not mean God is incapable of doing so. There is a difference between will and won't.
  2. -Alpha-

    Homosexual...thingy In Religion

    I don't quite understand what you mean by that. We have free will according to God, but we are limited. How do you not have free will? You can do whatever you want. You have free choices. Even though you'll be judged for your actions, how does that stop you from doing something? But if god is omniscient, that means he knows the future, and therefore it is predetermined - including the illusion of "free choices". That is, free will conflicts with the view of an omniscient god. Free will merely means that we are not controlled, or we don't have to obey anyone or anything and we are free to do what we want...the future is simply what we will do; God knows what we will do, but we don't, free will doesn't contradict God. God didn't make our futures or predetermine them, we did through our own choices. God does not change or control the future. He simply knows what will happen
  3. -Alpha-

    Proof Of God

    You are incorrect. The big bang theory and the theory of evolution have not been proven, therefore they are not part of science. Science consists of facts which have been proven. Theories are simply theories. And science does not tell us about the origin of life. If anything, science points to the existence of God. Think for a while, look at the universe which is so vast and detailed, so intricate and complex, so detailed and designed with its many systems and elements. Look at how perfectly our bodies function and what detailed organisms inhabit the earth. Indeed, a single cell is equipped to do its functions; a worm is given many legs, or capillaries, softness and flexibility so that it can move along without difficulty. Look at a fish, a bird, a reptile, an animal, and look at man, planet, star, and celestial bodies. Reflect on their accurate cycles and controlled movements. Look at anything and everything, wherever your eyes can stretch. You will find that in nature everything is made with excellence and perfection. The Quran says that God made the world fit for human inhabitance and life. Did you know If the oxygen percentage in the atmosphere were greater than 21%, the cells in our body would soon start to suffer great damages. The vegetation and hydrocarbon molecules needed for life would also be destroyed. If this percentage were any less, this would cause difficulties in our respiration, and the food we eat would not be converted into energy. Therefore, the 21% of oxygen in the atmosphere is the most ideal quantity determined for life. There are many other balances established on earth for the continuity of life: For instance, if the surface gravity were stronger than its current value, the atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane gasses, which would mean the end of life. If it were weaker, the planet's atmosphere would lose too much water, and life on earth would be impossible. The thickness of the earth's crust constitutes another one of the delicate balances in the earth. If the earth's crust were thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust and this would have severe effects on human life. If the opposite were true, that is, if the earth's crust were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great to permit life on earth. Do you really believe in coincidence and chance? Its like throwing buckets of sand in the air and expecting it to fall and form the shape of a sandcastle. Its impossible; It will never happen. And yet people are willing to believe that rather than in the possibilty of the universe being designed. The universe is far more detailed than any sort of castle, which points to the possibility of a Creator. Open your eyes to that possibility.
  4. -Alpha-

    Homosexual...thingy In Religion

    I don't quite understand what you mean by that.
  5. -Alpha-

    Memorizing A Book Of The Bible

    How long is pages is this Book you are talking about? ;) I managed to memorise the Quran (850 pages) in 1 year, so if the Book of Proverbs is less than you can definetly do it if you put enough time in. That being said Arabic is a million times easier to memorise than English. Its good that you took this challenge, because its great for the mind and will also increase your mind's capabilities. Don't force yourself and do your best.
  6. -Alpha-

    Do You Do Martial Arts?

    I train in Bujinkan Ninjutsu here in Japan, but I wouldn't class Ninjutsu as a martial art. I've stopped taking these Ninjutsu classes recently because my sensei got injured pretty badly, so I'm training on my own now. But I would love to have a chance to take Tae-Kwon-Do
  7. -Alpha-

    Post Your Dreeeeeam House

    This would be the perfect house for me
  8. -Alpha-

    High Alching

    I did yew longbows from 70-99, but that was 1-2 years ago, I am not sure how much they are worth now ;)
  9. -Alpha-

    W00t 99 Mage!

    Finally 99 mage!!!! :) :)
  10. -Alpha-

    Leaning Toward Evalution Being False.

    Yes, you could argue that he was writing at a time when society as a whole was a racist, and that we shouldn't judge him by todays standards. But this was only just over a 100 years ago. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was born in a very tribalistic and primitive society over 1300 years earlier, yet in his last sermon he said something quite different: "An Arab has no superiority over a Non Arab, nor does a Non-Arab have any superiority over an Arab; also a White has no superiority over a Black, nor does a Black have any superiority over a White" I believe in Black Magic.
  11. -Alpha-

    Leaning Toward Evalution Being False.

    All claims of darwinism and evolutionism rest on the scenario of "gradual development". The "irreducibly complex" organs unravelled by 20th century science demolish this scenario and the entire theory of evolution along with it. In The Origin of Species, Darwin put forward a number of concrete criteria suggesting how his theory might be tested and, if found wanting, disproved. Many passages in his book begin, "If my theory be true," and in these Darwin describes the discoveries his theory requires. One of the most important of these criteria concerns fossils and "transitional forms." However the fossil record completely contradicts Darwinism. In addition to these, Darwin gave us another very important criterion by which to test his theory. This criterion is so important, Darwin wrote, that it could cause his theory to be absolutely broken down: One of the complex creations, the DNA molecule is so inticate that if in only one of our cells it was unfolded, it would make a one metre long chain. This chain squeezed into the cell nucleus is only as big as a hundred thousandth of a millimeter with an amazing "packaging" system. However Evolutionists still embrace the possibility of the "chance" hypothesis. A well known molecular biologist from Australia, Michael Denton explains this in his book, "Evolution: A theory in crisis" And you're missing an even bigger point: Theres no such thing as evolution Evidence? The theory of evoultion asserts that the living things descended from a common ancestor. According to the theory, living beings differentiated from each other over a very long time with linked, gradual modifications. If these assertions were true, then there should have been numerous "intermidiary species" that lived. For instance if Birds evolved from Reptiles, then billions or creatures which were half bird/ half reptile should have lived throughout history. Darwin knew that the fossil deposits ought to be full of these intermidiary transitional forms. Yet he was also aware that no transitional form fossils were available. That was why he devoted a chapter to this problem in his book The Origin of Species. Darwin was hoping that this great problem would be solved in the future and that tranisitional froms would be discovered with new excavations, Despite their best efforts however, Evolutionists have not been able to find one transitional form in the past 140 years since the concept of Evolution. The well known evolutionist Derek Ager confesses this fact: The sudden origination of living beings on the Earth is proof that they were created by God. Evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma admits this fact:
  12. -Alpha-

    Leaning Toward Evalution Being False.

    Ha, typical, the average person thinks there is so much evidence proving evolution is correct. Well do you know what? There is hardly, if any, evidence proving that evolution is true. There is no concrete scientific discovery, particualarly in the fossil field. The reason people tend to believe in the evolution of man is because it is frequently discussed in the media and presented as a proven fact. But real experts on the subject are aware that the claim of "human evolution" has no scientific foundation. David Pilbeam, one of Harvard University's paelaeontologists, says the following: And William Fix the authour of an important book on the subject of Palaeoanthropology, makes this coment: This claim of evolution that "apes evolved into humans" lacks evidence. It starts with the human family tree with a species of monkeys called Australopithecus. According to this claim, Australopithecus began to walk upright over time, his brain grew, and passed through a series of stages to come to man's present state ( Homo Sapiens) But the fossil record does not back up this scenario. Despite the claim of all kinds of intermediate forms, there is an impassable barrier between the fossil remains respectively of man and monkeys. Futhermore, it has been revealed that the species which are portrayed as each other's ancestors are actully contemporary speces that lived in the same period. Ernst Mayr, a prominent Evolutionist accepts this truth: The scenaro of "human evolution" has no basis in the fossil record just as evolutionists' other scenarios about living species. Contrary to the propaganda spread by the media, there is absolutley no fossil evidence demonstarting that man and apes came from a common ancestor. Have a look at this link if you still think evolutionists have alot of evidence: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_13.html My assertion? My assertion is extremely unscientific? Evolution is very resonable!? Oh and I'd like to know which reptile has feathers :) What do kids learn at school these days? There are various structural differences between birds and reptiles, one of which concerns bone structure. Due to their bulky natures, dinosaurs-the ancestors of birds according to evolutionists-had thick, solid bones. Birds, in contrast, whether living or extinct, have hollow bones that are very light, as they must be in order for flight to take place. Another difference between reptiles and birds is their metabolic structure. Reptiles have the slowest metabolic structure in the animal kingdom. (The claim that dinosaurs had a warm-blooded fast metabolism remains a speculation.) Birds, on the other hand, are at the opposite end of the metabolic spectrum. For instance, the body temperature of a sparrow can rise to as much as 48°C due to its fast metabolism. On the other hand, reptiles lack the ability to regulate their body temperature. Instead, they expose their bodies to sunlight in order to warm up. Put simply, reptiles consume the least energy of all animals and birds the most. One of the best-known ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds are related to dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. Feduccia has this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution: "Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century". Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states: "To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it". Ever heard of evidence? It can help in a debate. That was probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Even Darwin Himself admitted to the major flaws in his theroy. So who are you to say Evolution is reasonable? In his book, The origin of species, Darwin had a chapter called Difficulties on theroy. It starts like this: Darwin did not base his claim on any concrete evidence or finding. He just made some observations and produced some ideas. He carried out most of his observations on board a ship called the H.M.S Beagle that had set sail from Britain. Darwin had serious doubts as he put forward his assertions. He was not so confident of his theory. He confessed to there being many points which he was unable to explain. Darwin hoped that these problems would be solved in future with the progress of science, and made some projections. 20th century science, however, science disapproved Darwin's claim one by one. The common point of Darwin's ideas rested on his primitive understanding of science. The absece of various domains of science such as biochemistry and microbiology at the time led evolutionists to believe that organisms had a simple structure which could from by chance. Since the laws of genetics were not known at that time, it was supposed that creatures could evolve into new species. The progress of science has overthrown these myths and revealed that living things are the work of a Creator.
  13. -Alpha-

    Leaning Toward Evalution Being False.

    Just the answer a typical evolutionist would give, and then you accuse us relegious people of not debating with open eyes, how sad Funny, I could say the exact same thing about your pal, Darwin. Lets take a look at Charles Darwin's disgusting views on racial differences. Here is a direct quote from one of his books: From "The descent of man", 2nd edition. So how can you believe this guy to be of a sound mind?
  14. -Alpha-

    Leaning Toward Evalution Being False.

    No, I think you should really learn about evolution before debating about it. Harun Yahya The most important intermediate form candidate that evolutionists refer to is a 150-year-old fossil bird called the archaeopteryx. Evolutionists claim that this fossil bird was a semi-dinosuar which could not fly properly. This Evolutionists claim proven false over and over again, collapsed for good with an Archaeopteryx fossil unearthed in 1992. The absence of its "sternum" (chest bone), in this creature, which is essential for flight muscles, was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. The seventh archaeopteryx fossil unearthed in 1992 revealed that the chest bone that evoultionits have long assumed to be missing actually existed. The presence of this bone proved the archaeopteryx was a flying bird. Under the pretence of being scientific, evolutionists often allege that "small dinosaurs took wing and became birds". However thier explanation of how this transformaton took place is simply a fairy tale. Evolutionists state some dinosaurs that flapped their front legs to hunt flies gradually "took wing". A sheer figment of this imagination, this scenario brings along an interesting question, how then did flies, which were not only already flying but also displaying an aerodynamic wonder by fluttering their wings 500 times a second synchronously, take wing? Truly, the archaeopteryx is no proof of evolution and is simply a misconception. Read Harun yahya's book. Tell me about the creation The amount of evidence there prooves evolution to be the childish theroy it is. Oh and while your at it have a good look at this link too. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_06.html
  15. -Alpha-

    Leaning Toward Evalution Being False.

    No, evolution does not make sense, Evolution is a completely flawed theroy. Evolutionists make the claim that birds evolved from reptiles. When we examine the structure of these two living classes, however we see that this assertion is extremly unscientific. There are many structural differences between birds and reptiles. In fact in the world of verterates, reptiles are one of the groups that least resemble birds. While birds are warm blooded, reptiles are not eve capable of producing their own body heat. With the structure of their skin, their metabolism, and their skeletal system, reptiles are ultimatley created to live on land. That is just one example. Harun Yahya The theroy of evoultion argues that living things are in constant change continously developing through coincedences. The fossil record,however, indicates the exact opposite.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.