MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop CFOL (Christian Fans of LEGO)
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
GOD Vs. SCIENCE
Join to comment
 Group moderator 
This is excellent ... we need more students like this! This is one of my favorite stories



Let me explain the problem science has with religion.' The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.

'You're a Christian, aren't you, son?'

'Yes sir,' the student says.

'So you believe in God?'

'Absolutely. '

'Is God good?'

'Sure! God's good.'

'Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?'

'Yes'

'Are you good or evil?'

'The Bible says I'm evil.'

The professor grins knowingly. 'Aha! The Bible!' He considers for a moment. 'Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help

him? Would you try?'

'Yes sir, I would.'

'So you're good...!'

'I wouldn't say that.'

'But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't.'

The student does not answer, so the professor continues. 'He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?'

The student remains silent.

'No, you can't, can you?' the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.

'Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?'

'Er..yes,' the student says.

'Is Satan good?'

The student doesn't hesitate on this one.. 'No.'

'Then where does Satan come from?'

The student falters. 'From God'

'That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?'

'Yes, sir.'

'Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?'

'Yes'

'So who created evil?' The professor continued, 'If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.'

Again, the student has no answer. 'Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?'

The student squirms on his feet. 'Yes.'

'So who created them?'

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. 'Who created them?' There is still no answer.

Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom.

The class is mesmerized. 'Tell me,' he continues onto another student. 'Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?'

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. 'Yes, professor, I do.'

The old man stops pacing. 'Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?'

'No sir. I've never seen Him.'

'Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?'

'No, sir, I have not.'

'Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?'

'No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't.'

'Yet you still believe in him?'

'Yes'

'According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?'

'Nothing,' the student replies. 'I only have my faith.'

'Yes, faith,' the professor repeats. 'And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.'

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. 'Professor, is there such thing as heat?'

' Yes.

'And is there such a thing as cold?'

'Yes, son, there's cold too.'

'No sir, there isn't.'

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. 'You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that.

There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.'

'Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.'

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

'What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?'

'Yes,' the professor replies without hesitation. 'What is night if it isn't darkness?'

'You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word.'

'In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?'

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. 'So what point are you making, young man?'

'Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.'

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. 'Flawed? Can you explain how?'

'You are working on the premise of duality,' the student explains.. 'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain , felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,' the student continues. 'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds, 'Of course, there is. We see it everyday It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.'

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

The professor sat down.

If you read it all the way through and had a smile on your face when you finished, mail to your friends and family with the title 'God vs Science'

PS: the student was Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs Science in 1921....

Permalink
| March 21, 2010, 2:51 pm
Quoting Timothy Mably
I skimmed this topic. I shouldn't have but it seemed like a waste of time to read since I know God is the victor.

Scientists are humans, creations of God and their purpose as humans is to need a savior, Jesus, so they sin. Sin is in their nature as given to them by Satan after he had turned Adam and Eve to sin.

In Revelation is says that there will be very few Christians in the last days. More people will turn away and the purpose of that is for the believers, Christians, to see how they need faith as opposed to the non-believers who have very little faith and have gone in the path of the fallen.

Exactly, and since there is well over one or two billion Christians right now I think then the world would be unlikely to end in 2012, although that's another topic....
Permalink
| March 21, 2010, 4:07 pm
 Group moderator 
Quoting Timothy Mably
Consider that a billion is very small when compared to God. I don't think it's all going down in 2012, nobody really does unless you include the homeless guy on the other side of town...

God will show us His power by letting the universe last long. Perhaps we'll get to year zillion? Perhaps America won't be united any longer? Maybe Saw is going to get it's last movie for once and for all? ;)

maybe stallone will finally get shot, maybe heff will finally see sense in his ways ;)
Permalink
| March 21, 2010, 6:57 pm
I read the whole thing.
It's pretty cool, glad you put it here.
Permalink
| March 22, 2010, 5:09 am
I've read the story at the top before, and it's a great story. Whoever wrote it has a wonderful mind for arguing, but you should know that the story can't be proven true. According to "Truth and Fiction.com" Albert Einstein never did such a thing. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/e/einstein-god.htm
Nonetheless, a great example, and thanks for sharing.
Permalink
| November 16, 2010, 12:42 pm
I've seen the clever remark about the professor's brain before... and even the second time I got a chuckle out of it.
Of course, I'm wondering what the heck this had to do with LEGOs, but I enjoyed this story anyway. Thank you.
Permalink
| November 17, 2010, 10:46 pm
That was the best God vs. Science argument I have ever read in my entire life...
Permalink
| November 17, 2010, 11:00 pm
Oh, and evolution takes too long to observe it in one life time.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:22 pm
GOD vs. Science is not a battle! They agree perfectly!!!
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:23 pm
There is evidence that God exists, but not proof. The amount of time it would take for life to appear on
earth by pure chance is longer than 15,000,000,000 years!
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:26 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
GOD vs. Science is not a battle! They agree perfectly!!!

Well said! I concur!
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:26 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
GOD vs. Science is not a battle! They agree perfectly!!!

No they don't. Christianity says god created the universe/Earth, Science says the Big Bang. So on and so forth.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:27 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
No they don't. Christianity says god created the universe/Earth, Science says the Big Bang. So on and so forth.

Science as in REAL science, not what modern scientists are saying.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:28 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
There is evidence that God exists, but not proof. The amount of time it would take for life to appear on
earth by pure chance is longer than 15,000,000,000 years!

The universe is 13.7 Billion Years old. Life did not appear by "Chance". There were the right circumstances. Ever hear of the comet theory?
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:29 pm
By the way, I would like you all to know that it is possible to believe in evolution and God at the same time. I do.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:29 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
By the way, I would like you all to know that it is possible to believe in evolution and God at the same time. I do.

As long as it's microevolution, it fits with Chrisitanity. If it's macroevolution, it doesn't.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:30 pm
Quoting Drew the Skater
Science as in REAL science, not what modern scientists are saying.

And what would this "Real Science" be?
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:30 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
And what would this "Real Science" be?

Where the actual facts lead. Many modern scientists ignore what the actual evidence says.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:32 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
By the way, I would like you all to know that it is possible to believe in evolution and God at the same time. I do.

DUH! Start looking at the Bible metaphorically. All will be revealed.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:32 pm
Quoting Drew the Skater
Where the actual facts lead. Many modern scientists ignore what the actual evidence says.

And these "Actual Facts"? Explaining always helps.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 7:39 pm
I LOVE THIS! i should use this when i am in a situation like this.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 8:56 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
And these "Actual Facts"? Explaining always helps.

What we know about the universe.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 9:09 pm
Quoting Drew the Skater
What we know about the universe.

So they are ignoring what? Dark matter, Anti Matter, Black Holes, BB, Big Crunch, supernovas, novas, protostars, nebulas, Cosmic Background Radiation, What are they ignoring?
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 9:19 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
So they are ignoring what? Dark matter, Anti Matter, Black Holes, BB, Big Crunch, supernovas, novas, protostars, nebulas, Cosmic Background Radiation, What are they ignoring?

Many scientists are ignoring the precambrian explosion and the fact that missing links are still, well, missing, as far as evolution goes. The entire existence of the universe requires a distinct violation of the laws of thermodynamics (which state that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed). This either means modern science is ragingly incorrect or, in fact, actually requires a miracle to have occured.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 9:27 pm
Quoting W Mark
Many scientists are ignoring the precambrian explosion and the fact that missing links are still, well, missing, as far as evolution goes. The entire existence of the universe requires a distinct violation of the laws of thermodynamics (which state that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed). This either means modern science is ragingly incorrect or, in fact, actually requires a miracle to have occured.

One theory goes that our universe is just one in a line of many that have come before, possibly with different laws. During the Big Bang the laws we know now, did not exist, they were starting to exist. They were brought into existence. Evolution is an extremely slow process, and the chances of finding fossils of a missing link is almost nothing due to the climates and age of the time that we started to evolve. It is not an instantaneous thing. It is agonizingly slow.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 9:36 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
One theory goes that our universe is just one in a line of many that have come before, possibly with different laws. During the Big Bang the laws we know now, did not exist, they were starting to exist. They were brought into existence. Evolution is an extremely slow process, and the chances of finding fossils of a missing link is almost nothing due to the climates and age of the time that we started to evolve. It is not an instantaneous thing. It is agonizingly slow.

Yes, agonizingly slow. So creatures would take a long time evolving out of one philum and into another?
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 9:42 pm
Quoting W Mark
Yes, agonizingly slow. So creatures would take a long time evolving out of one philum and into another?

They don't take billions of years, maybe a few hundred thousand. At least for humans. All really depends on the species and what conditions it is under.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 9:51 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
They don't take billions of years, maybe a few hundred thousand. At least for humans. All really depends on the species and what conditions it is under.

So would it be fair to say that evolution must have been occuring constantly for sapient life to form on the Earth in the relatively short time period since life on Earth began?
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 9:54 pm
Quoting W Mark
So would it be fair to say that evolution must have been occuring constantly for sapient life to form on the Earth in the relatively short time period since life on Earth began?

Yes. Life is weird, things happen that you wouldn't expect.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 10:16 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Yes. Life is weird, things happen that you wouldn't expect.

So, life has been evolving steadily since it began. Shouldn't that mean that the collection of fossils we have found should show almost completely random segments of the evolutionary cycle?
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 10:24 pm
Quoting W Mark
So, life has been evolving steadily since it began. Shouldn't that mean that the collection of fossils we have found should show almost completely random segments of the evolutionary cycle?

No, evolution is small, is is little by little. Not one gigantic big explosion at once. It takes time to evolve.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 10:36 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
No, evolution is small, is is little by little. Not one gigantic big explosion at once. It takes time to evolve.

Exactly. So the philum we see today are like branches on a tree, and as we trace farther back they converge slowly until we finally reach a single branch, the first life-form on Earth?
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 10:38 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
No, evolution is small, is is little by little. Not one gigantic big explosion at once. It takes time to evolve.

Yes, it takes millions of years.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 11:36 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
No they don't. Christianity says god created the universe/Earth, Science says the Big Bang. So on and so forth.

I believe God caused the big bang, evolution, and all that.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 11:36 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
The universe is 13.7 Billion Years old. Life did not appear by "Chance". There were the right circumstances. Ever hear of the comet theory?

Yeah, I know, I'm saying how absurdly improbable it is for life to occur by chance.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 11:37 pm
Quoting Drew the Skater
As long as it's microevolution, it fits with Chrisitanity. If it's macroevolution, it doesn't.

Macroevolution does too.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 11:38 pm
Quoting W Mark
Many scientists are ignoring the precambrian explosion and the fact that missing links are still, well, missing, as far as evolution goes. The entire existence of the universe requires a distinct violation of the laws of thermodynamics (which state that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed). This either means modern science is ragingly incorrect or, in fact, actually requires a miracle to have occured.

Yes, a miracle(caused by God) occurred, not modern science is ragingly off.
Permalink
| November 18, 2010, 11:40 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Yes, a miracle(caused by God) occurred, not modern science is ragingly off.

So you agree that in this case, science actually practically proves the existence of God?
Permalink
| November 19, 2010, 9:33 am
Quoting W Mark
So you agree that in this case, science actually practically proves the existence of God?

Yes.
Permalink
| November 20, 2010, 3:11 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Yes.

Unless you are completely determined not to believe in God.
Permalink
| November 20, 2010, 3:20 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Unless you are completely determined not to believe in God.

Yes, it's always possible to personally deny God. In many cases, however, scientifically denying Him is quite difficult.
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:24 pm
science is for the unfaithful. those people that believe in science are the same that are in the devils grasp. they just wont accept god, they are consumed bye the evil

and microwaves.... yeah, there evil too....
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:30 pm
Quoting Matt Pondiscio
science is for the unfaithful. those people that believe in science are the same that are in the devils grasp. they just wont accept god, they are consumed bye the evil

and microwaves.... yeah, there evil too....


Several scientists (Boyle and Newton, for example) actually viewed Science as a means of understanding more about God's Creation, and through it God Himself. I thoroughly and strongly approve.
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:42 pm
Quoting W Mark
Exactly. So the philum we see today are like branches on a tree, and as we trace farther back they converge slowly until we finally reach a single branch, the first life-form on Earth?

Pretty much, a single microbial life form, reproduced, moved onto different places and evolved to fit their surroundings. And then we end up here. Originally stars...
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:46 pm
Quoting W Mark

Several scientists (Boyle and Newton, for example) actually viewed Science as a means of understanding more about God's Creation, and through it God Himself. I thoroughly and strongly approve.

well, science is science. I mean the people that think that there is no God and we were created by rocks or whatever, those peoples are like microwaves :P
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:47 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Pretty much, a single microbial life form, reproduced, moved onto different places and evolved to fit their surroundings. And then we end up here. Originally stars...

So as we go further back in time we see a decrease in the sophistication and variety of life?
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:48 pm
Quoting Matt Pondiscio
science is for the unfaithful. those people that believe in science are the same that are in the devils grasp. they just wont accept god, they are consumed bye the evil

and microwaves.... yeah, there evil too....

So you are calling the computer you type at evil. LEGO you are calling evil. All progress you are calling evil. Everything you use, from the toilet to LEGO, are by products of science, A.K.A Technology...
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:48 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I believe God caused the big bang, evolution, and all that.

So you are saying he was in a place with absolutely no existence? No space, a place where existence is physically impossible?
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:50 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
So you are calling the computer you type at evil. LEGO you are calling evil. All progress you are calling evil. Everything you use, from the toilet to LEGO, are by products of science, A.K.A Technology...

http://mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=2289&topicid=47535#comment-658511

not science is bad, but people that believe science is why we are here
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:50 pm
Quoting W Mark
So as we go further back in time we see a decrease in the sophistication and variety of life?

But that of course is the begging of life, almost nothing was existing (life wise), then as everything went on, there was more and more. BTW I actually COMBINE Religion and Science. How? I look at the Bible from a philosophical view, not a literal. Adam and Eve are the explanation for evolution. They were the only existing people, BAM, they populated the entire world. Just like a few small microbes did. Hmm. See a connection?
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:52 pm
Quoting Matt Pondiscio
http://mocpages.com/group_conversation.php?id=2289&topicid=47535#comment-658511

not science is bad, but people that believe science is why we are here

If you really want to get technical. We are just Star Dust. Created by the stars. Oh yeah, God creating everything is probably just explaining what the stars did. The high mass ones go supernova and heavier elements are formed. All of which went into life forming.
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 9:55 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
But that of course is the begging of life, almost nothing was existing (life wise), then as everything went on, there was more and more.

You are aware of the Cambrian Explosion? 530 million years ago, according to most sources, yet every major philum existed at the time.
Quoting Matthew Novosad
BTW I actually COMBINE Religion and Science. How? I look at the Bible from a philosophical view, not a literal. Adam and Eve are the explanation for evolution. They were the only existing people, BAM, they populated the entire world. Just like a few small microbes did. Hmm. See a connection?

I look at the Bible more literally (although in some cases, in light of scientific evidence, I am inclined to think that some things have been lost in translation), and hold that science actually backs the Bible if properly examined. Evolution has not been thoroughly proven by science (don't object to that without asking yourself if you could remove all doubt as to the subject), and thus the Bible is not properly contradicted by science.
Permalink
| November 21, 2010, 10:04 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
But that of course is the begging of life, almost nothing was existing (life wise), then as everything went on, there was more and more. BTW I actually COMBINE Religion and Science. How? I look at the Bible from a philosophical view, not a literal. Adam and Eve are the explanation for evolution. They were the only existing people, BAM, they populated the entire world. Just like a few small microbes did. Hmm. See a connection?
Yes, that is what I believe.

Permalink
| November 22, 2010, 10:00 am
Quoting Matt Pondiscio
science is for the unfaithful. those people that believe in science are the same that are in the devils grasp. they just wont accept god, they are consumed bye the evil

and microwaves.... yeah, there evil too....

Why do you think so?
Permalink
| November 22, 2010, 10:01 am
Quoting Anders Cutterhill
I read the whole thing.
It's pretty cool, glad you put it here.

yeah me too in a way it was pretty funny!
Permalink
| November 22, 2010, 11:09 am
Why have the Admins and Moderators locked the topics about evolution?
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 12:16 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
So you are saying he was in a place with absolutely no existence? No space, a place where existence is physically impossible?

No I think it is rather ridiculous to believe in evolution without believing in God, its just all to improbable.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 12:20 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
No I think it is rather ridiculous to believe in evolution without believing in God, its just all to improbable.

Wrong, RONG R O N G, R O N G! No, ever hear of Genes? Then yes it IS possible with out a god.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 12:22 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
Why have the Admins and Moderators locked the topics about evolution?

I have some pretty strong evidence for evolution:
1. If the earth is about 6000 years old, how can we see things farther than 6000 light-years away?
2. The bible, literally take, says (in Genesis 1) that the sky is a firmament, and that there's a bunch of water above it.
3. If the creation story is true, why would God put so much counter-evidence in the world.
4. If dinosaurs were alive at the same time as modern animals, wouldn't they have completely wiped out modern animals, after all they had much stronger deffence and attack weapons(do you think a lion could kill an ankylosaurus, rather the reverse).
4.5 Also I've found a lot of creationists believe the dinosaurs were wiped out in the great flood, doesn't it say in the bible that Noah took two of EVERY animal onto the ark(that would include dinosaurs), thus I can deduce that dinosaurs had already been wiped out by the time of the flood.
5.There isn't enough surface area on the earth for all of the lifeforms in the fossil record plus modern animals to be living side by side.
6. We still have monkeys because the humans did not evolve from modern monkeys, the evolved from early humanoids. Also, a species can branch into two, not ALL the members have to evolve.
7.If dinosaurs and modern animals were alive together, we would find fossils of modern animals with them, or at least in the same layers of the earth, but we don't.
8. Fossilization takes a very long time, and very precise conditions. It would take longer than the time since the flood for fossils to occur. Going along with this argument, the torrents of the great flood would scatter the bones of the dinosaurs, making complete fossils impossible.

Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 12:42 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Wrong, RONG R O N G, R O N G! No, ever hear of Genes? Then yes it IS possible with out a god.

Do you mean genes like DNA, or do you mean something else?
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 12:48 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
Do you mean genes like DNA, or do you mean something else?

By the way, if your thinking of the theory where space aliens came to earth and planted life here, that's ridiculously improbable to, after all where did they come: another planet. They would hundreds of millions of years to evolve and quite a long time to devolope technology to came to earth, and also it would take a long time for them to discover a planet suitable for life.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 12:53 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
By the way, if your thinking of the theory where space aliens came to earth and planted life here, that's ridiculously improbable to, after all where did they come: another planet. They would hundreds of millions of years to evolve and quite a long time to devolope technology to came to earth, and also it would take a long time for them to discover a planet suitable for life.

Not even close. No, genes as with DNA. They change depending on somethings surroundings. Adapting... A.K.A Evolution...

Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 1:04 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Not even close. No, genes as with DNA. They change depending on somethings surroundings. Adapting... A.K.A Evolution...

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but I still don't see how it refutes my argument.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 1:40 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Not even close. No, genes as with DNA. They change depending on somethings surroundings. Adapting... A.K.A Evolution...

And I'm talking about how improbable life's beginning is, not it's incabability to evolve, genes would take a ridiculously long amount of time to evolve, many times longer than they did.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 1:45 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
Yeah, I know what you're saying, but I still don't see how it refutes my argument.

O.K., I'm posting a rebuttal to the long comment.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 1:54 pm
Quoting Harrison H.
God created those things for a test I think. Adam and Eve failed the test for their Human desres and brought sin onto Humanity.

Why would God give us test, if he knew we were going to fail? Not to try to disproof your argument, I just want to know what you think. I have found this problem difficult myself.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 1:55 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
O.K., I'm posting a rebuttal to the long comment.

Which one?
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 1:57 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
1. If the earth is about 6000 years old, how can we see things farther than 6000 light-years away?

Light Year- The distance light travels in ONE EARTH YEAR. Lightyear is distance not time.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
3. If the creation story is true, why would God put so much counter-evidence in the world.

Who's side are you on? Evolution or Bible?

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer 4. If dinosaurs were alive at the same time as modern animals, wouldn't they have completely wiped out modern animals, after all they had much stronger deffence and attack weapons(do you think a lion could kill an ankylosaurus, rather the reverse).
Exactly.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
4.5 Also I've found a lot of creationists believe the dinosaurs were wiped out in the great flood, doesn't it say in the bible that Noah took two of EVERY animal onto the ark(that would include dinosaurs), thus I can deduce that dinosaurs had already been wiped out by the time of the flood.

You have a point. Wait what side am I on now? Oh yeah, evolution.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
5.There isn't enough surface area on the earth for all of the lifeforms in the fossil record plus modern animals to be living side by side.

There is but there isn't.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
6. We still have monkeys because the humans did not evolve from modern monkeys, the evolved from early humanoids. Also, a species can branch into two, not ALL the members have to evolve.

Exactly.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
7.If dinosaurs and modern animals were alive together, we would find fossils of modern animals with them, or at least in the same layers of the earth, but we don't.

YES!


Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
8. Fossilization takes a very long time, and very precise conditions. It would take longer than the time since the flood for fossils to occur. Going along with this argument, the torrents of the great flood would scatter the bones of the dinosaurs, making complete fossils impossible.
Exactly, though if fossils were underground they wouldn't have been scattered. Some fossils survive because they were in the perfect spot, even bones millimeters off are not going to make it.


One thing though. I thought you were going against evolution...
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 1:59 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
And I'm talking about how improbable life's beginning is, not it's incabability to evolve, genes would take a ridiculously long amount of time to evolve, many times longer than they did.

Not as long as you think. Genes adapt faster then you know...
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 2:19 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Not as long as you think. Genes adapt faster then you know...

No, I'm talking about how improbable genes actually starting is, not evolutionary speed.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 3:13 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
1. If the earth is about 6000 years old, how can we see things farther than 6000 light-years away?

Light Year- The distance light travels in ONE EARTH YEAR. Lightyear is distance not time.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
3. If the creation story is true, why would God put so much counter-evidence in the world.

Who's side are you on? Evolution or Bible?

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer 4. If dinosaurs were alive at the same time as modern animals, wouldn't they have completely wiped out modern animals, after all they had much stronger deffence and attack weapons(do you think a lion could kill an ankylosaurus, rather the reverse).
Exactly.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
4.5 Also I've found a lot of creationists believe the dinosaurs were wiped out in the great flood, doesn't it say in the bible that Noah took two of EVERY animal onto the ark(that would include dinosaurs), thus I can deduce that dinosaurs had already been wiped out by the time of the flood.

You have a point. Wait what side am I on now? Oh yeah, evolution.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
5.There isn't enough surface area on the earth for all of the lifeforms in the fossil record plus modern animals to be living side by side.

There is but there isn't.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
6. We still have monkeys because the humans did not evolve from modern monkeys, the evolved from early humanoids. Also, a species can branch into two, not ALL the members have to evolve.

Exactly.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
7.If dinosaurs and modern animals were alive together, we would find fossils of modern animals with them, or at least in the same layers of the earth, but we don't.

YES!


Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
8. Fossilization takes a very long time, and very precise conditions. It would take longer than the time since the flood for fossils to occur. Going along with this argument, the torrents of the great flood would scatter the bones of the dinosaurs, making complete fossils impossible.
Exactly, though if fossils were underground they wouldn't have been scattered. Some fossils survive because they were in the perfect spot, even bones millimeters off are not going to make it.


One thing though. I thought you were going against evolution...

I'm going for evolution, against atheism
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 3:15 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
1. If the earth is about 6000 years old, how can we see things farther than 6000 light-years away?

Light Year- The distance light travels in ONE EARTH YEAR. Lightyear is distance not time.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
3. If the creation story is true, why would God put so much counter-evidence in the world.

Who's side are you on? Evolution or Bible?

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer 4. If dinosaurs were alive at the same time as modern animals, wouldn't they have completely wiped out modern animals, after all they had much stronger deffence and attack weapons(do you think a lion could kill an ankylosaurus, rather the reverse).
Exactly.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
4.5 Also I've found a lot of creationists believe the dinosaurs were wiped out in the great flood, doesn't it say in the bible that Noah took two of EVERY animal onto the ark(that would include dinosaurs), thus I can deduce that dinosaurs had already been wiped out by the time of the flood.

You have a point. Wait what side am I on now? Oh yeah, evolution.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
5.There isn't enough surface area on the earth for all of the lifeforms in the fossil record plus modern animals to be living side by side.

There is but there isn't.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
6. We still have monkeys because the humans did not evolve from modern monkeys, the evolved from early humanoids. Also, a species can branch into two, not ALL the members have to evolve.

Exactly.

Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
7.If dinosaurs and modern animals were alive together, we would find fossils of modern animals with them, or at least in the same layers of the earth, but we don't.

YES!


Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
8. Fossilization takes a very long time, and very precise conditions. It would take longer than the time since the flood for fossils to occur. Going along with this argument, the torrents of the great flood would scatter the bones of the dinosaurs, making complete fossils impossible.
Exactly, though if fossils were underground they wouldn't have been scattered. Some fossils survive because they were in the perfect spot, even bones millimeters off are not going to make it.


One thing though. I thought you were going against evolution...

I'm going for evolution, against atheism. Sorry that I didn't say so beforehand.Thanks for supporting my ideas, and yes I know a light-year is a distance not a unit of time.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 3:17 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably voracious turkey consumer
No, I'm talking about how improbable genes actually starting is, not evolutionary speed.

They are part of DNA they have been around as long as life has.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 3:58 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I'm going for evolution, against atheism. Sorry that I didn't say so beforehand.Thanks for supporting my ideas, and yes I know a light-year is a distance not a unit of time.

Yeah, that's why I was confused.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 3:59 pm
Quoting Matthew Novosad
They are part of DNA they have been around as long as life has.

I know, I'm saying how improbable it is for a complex molecule like DNA to occur completely by chance, especially in the relatively short time span that it happened in.
Permalink
| November 26, 2010, 4:25 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
I know, I'm saying how improbable it is for a complex molecule like DNA to occur completely by chance, especially in the relatively short time span that it happened in.

Hundreds of millions of years is a short time?
Maybe geologically, but not chemically.
Chance you say?
Who says evolution works by chance? chance may play a part, but evolution is predictable.
I don't think you completely understand evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life started, but how it has become more diverse.
Abiogenesis, however, describes the origin of life. RNA forms before DNA first of all, and amino acids form naturally in the conditions found in the primordial Earth. This has been replicated in the lab. The basic organic gases found in the primordial Earth are methane, hydrogen, hydrogen-cyanide, and ammonia. Primitive versions (They lack a ribose and phosphate group. It is known how the phosphate group is formed but not how the ribose forms.) of Nucleotides (they make up DNA) naturally form when ammonia and hydrogen cyanide are subject to the right conditions, which again, were found on the primordial Earth. When complete nucleotides form, they must form polynucleotides. There is a clay called montmorillonite that speeds up the reaction required for polynucleotides to form. This clay was abundant on the sea-floor in the primordial earth. These chains build up to form RNA. RNA is a self replicating molecule. The resulting copies aren't perfect, but some would be better adapted to the environment than others and would be more likely to replicate. Also found in montmorillonite clay are lipids. Lipids tend to stick together and clump into micelles. These micelles can encase RNA and create the first self replicating cell. Then RNA has to form DNA. However, DNA requires proteins to replicate. Polypeptides, chains of amino acids that form proteins, also form naturally in the same conditions as nucleotides and were abundant in montmorillonite as well as many more complex organic chemicals. These polypeptides build proteins and voila. You have DNA. The cells that would have been found the look almost nothing like todays cells because they weren't nearly as complex as they are today. These hypothesis are still being tested, but the research is very promising. Well, thats as much as I know about abiogenesis.


Hope you've learned something, have a nice day.
Permalink
| December 2, 2010, 10:15 pm
Quoting The Brick Wizard (shane ?)
'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room. 'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?' The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain , felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.

Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. 'I guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

That is a logical fallacy. There is a huge difference between the professors brain and something supernatural like god. you can't even compare the two because science works within the natural world. You can test to see if the professor's brain exists, and the test has been done hundreds of thousands of times before, so you can conclude he has a brain the same way know gravity exists. However, you cannot test to see if god exists. You can test to see if certain things have supernatural origins or not, but you cannot test the existence of the supernatural itself. If something cannot be proven through evidence, then for it even to be considered true, it must be logically consistent, which the concept of a deity is not. Evolution can also be tested and there are mountains of evidence to support it. Evolution has even been observed in insects and bacteria because they both have short time spans between generations.

Also, like someone else pointed out, Albert Einstein never said this. He did not believe in a Christian, or personal god, and he repeatedly said, the only way he could be described as religious, was his admiration of the beauty of the universe.


Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
There is evidence that God exists, but not proof. The amount of time it would take for life to appear on
earth by pure chance is longer than 15,000,000,000 years!

I've never heard a scientist say that life on earth, or the existence of the universe, for that matter, is random or purely by chance. In fact, the Earth is exactly where it should be for life to form. It is possible. The universe is possible. The existence of our solar system is possible. Everything we see around us in nature is possible through natural processes and the Earth is exactly where it should be in order for it to support life, as I have just said. Basically, the universe isn't impossible. It is possible.

Quoting Drew the Skater
As long as it's microevolution, it fits with Chrisitanity. If it's macroevolution, it doesn't.

Microevolution IS macroevolution

Quoting W Mark
Many scientists are ignoring the precambrian explosion and the fact that missing links are still, well, missing, as far as evolution goes. The entire existence of the universe requires a distinct violation of the laws of thermodynamics (which state that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed). This either means modern science is ragingly incorrect or, in fact, actually requires a miracle to have occured.

All of the species in the Cambrian explosion that have been discovered to date have a pre-Cambrian ancestor, and most died out before the Cambrian explosion ended. The Cambrian explosion lasted about 150,000,000 years.

How does the universe defy the laws of thermodynamics? The material that makes up the universe already existed. It just changed state. In fact, the material could have always existed. There is no need for it to be created. It could come from another universe, and that universe could be made of the material that came from another universe, and so on and so forth.

Quoting W Mark
So you agree that in this case, science actually practically proves the existence of God?

It does not and cannot.

Quoting W Mark
Evolution has not been thoroughly proven by science (don't object to that without asking yourself if you could remove all doubt as to the subject), and thus the Bible is not properly contradicted by science.

Evolution is arguably the strongest scientific theory. The Endogenous retrovirus alone proves evolution. Humans and chimps share over 96,000 in the same places in the genome. The chances of them inserting into the exact same cell in the exact same location in the genome are so mind bogglingly small, most people would say it is impossible. However, in light of evolution, there existence is completely explainable. Gene sequencing and molecular evidence reveal the same tree of life that the fossil record shows. Thats three different processes that give the same result. And evolution has been observed.
Permalink
| December 4, 2010, 9:57 am
Quoting Lionex Hunter
Hundreds of millions of years is a short time?
maybe geologically, but not chemically.
Chance you say?
Who says evolution works by chance? chance may play a part, but evolution is predictable.
I don't think you completely understand evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life started, but how it has become more diverse.
I'm saying that it is pretty much impossible for DNA to occur in such a relatively short time. Since you don't seem to understand it don't think I'll find it useful to read the rest.


Permalink
| December 4, 2010, 10:55 am

<<<< I've never heard a scientist say that life on earth, or the existence of the universe, for that matter, is random or purely by chance. In fact, the Earth is exactly where it should be for life to form. It is possible. The universe is possible. The existence of our solar system is possible. Everything we see around us in nature is possible through natural processes and the Earth is exactly where it should be in order for it to support life, as I have just said. Basically, the universe isn't impossible. It is possible.

Not without God



Permalink
| December 4, 2010, 10:57 am
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Lionex Hunter
Hundreds of millions of years is a short time?
Maybe geologically, but not chemically.
Chance you say?
Who says evolution works by chance? chance may play a part, but evolution is predictable.
I don't think you completely understand evolution. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how life started, but how it has become more diverse.

I'm saying that it is pretty much impossible for DNA to occur in such a relatively short time. Since you don't seem to understand it don't think I'll find it useful to read the rest.

I did address that in my comment, but it wouldn't make sense unless I gave more explanation on the subject. And, as I said in the previous comment, RNA forms before DNA. I also said hundreds of thousands of years is very long on a chemical timescale. This time read my comment before replying.
Or maybe you did read it...

Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Lionex Hunter I've never heard a scientist say that life on earth, or the existence of the universe, for that matter, is random or purely by chance. In fact, the Earth is exactly where it should be for life to form. It is possible. The universe is possible. The existence of our solar system is possible. Everything we see around us in nature is possible through natural processes and the Earth is exactly where it should be in order for it to support life, as I have just said. Basically, the universe isn't impossible. It is possible.

Not without God

Science does not even consider the supernatural when it searches for answers. This is so much more productive. If your omnipotent being really did create the universe and everything in it, then it would be impossible through nature, because it requires a supernatural cause to exist.
Permalink
| December 4, 2010, 7:39 pm
Quoting Phazezorz .
K, Imma shut this down:

God exists.

/Wins Arguement.

Yes. You have a point. I'm just not good enough at arguing to prove it.
Permalink
| December 4, 2010, 8:45 pm
Quoting Lionex Hunter

Science does not even consider the supernatural when it searches for answers.
Well, they kind of do, but they call it dark matter, not God

Permalink
| December 4, 2010, 8:45 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
Quoting Lionex Hunter

Science does not even consider the supernatural when it searches for answers.
Well, they kind of do, but they call it dark matter, not God

Actually, dark matter has a lot to do with mathematics that are way beyond my comprehension at the moment, but I do know it is used to explain gravitational anomalies and, according to the mathematics, accounts for approximately 80% of the mass in the universe. It may not interact with electromagnetic radiation, but it is is not, however, supernatural.
Permalink
| December 4, 2010, 9:04 pm
Quoting Lionex Hunter
Actually, dark matter has a lot to do with mathematics that are way beyond my comprehension at the moment, but I do know it is used to explain gravitational anomalies and, according to the mathematics, accounts for approximately 80% of the mass in the universe. It may not interact with electromagnetic radiation, but it is is not, however, supernatural.

How do you it's not the action of God, stabilizing the universe? Even if its not, its to wierd not to have a creator of some kind.
Permalink
| December 4, 2010, 9:09 pm
Quoting Bob the inconceivably invincible
How do you it's not the action of God, stabilizing the universe? Even if its not, its to wierd not to have a creator of some kind.

Ironically, Dark matter will cause the death of the universe...
I find the world to be a fascinating and beautiful place. Now that we know what we know and understand what we do, we can look into the universe with understanding. An understanding of what and who we are, and where we fit into the universe. We realize how special we are, even though we may be insignificant. Our planet is a tiny spec of our galaxy, and our galaxy is a spec in the universe, yet we fit. We came from the stars, the source of creation and destruction. We have one chance to experience this before we fade away. The material that makes us what we are will become something else. The material that makes me up has been in it's current state for about 13.7 billion years. And it may have existed forever before then, and forever still. I have a chance to experience the world, and to experience consciousness and everything it means to be human and I will not belittle that. Ever. And there may yet be a creator, but I guarantee you it isn't a deity or a supernatural force, but a force of nature. For me, you could almost compare nature to a god. Nature is what has brought us into existence and it is responsible for the processes that have "created" us. It is here where I am religious only in the sense that I have a profound respect and love for the beauty, chaos, and order that is the universe and our existence.

Sincerely,
-An atheist.
Permalink
| December 4, 2010, 9:45 pm
Quoting Phazezorz .
K, so, obviously, my old comment was moderated.

So, Imma re-phrase it.

Ok, Two guys. One guy= Religious, the Second Guy= Atheist.

Scenario 1: God exists, Guy One enters Kingdom of God, Guy Two doesn't.

Scenario 2: God doesn't exist. Both Guy One and Guy Two die like every other believer and non-believer on the face of the earth.

So, Scenario 1 Winner: Guy One. L-ser: Guy Two.

Scenario 2: No real Winner, but no real l-ser, either. So, in either Scenario, Guy One wins, so to speak, whilst Guy Two doesn't.

You can't say 'I told you so' when you're d-ad.

Pascal's wager.
Permalink
| December 5, 2010, 4:07 pm
Quoting Phazezorz .
K, so, obviously, my old comment was moderated.

So, Imma re-phrase it.

Ok, Two guys. One guy= Religious, the Second Guy= Atheist.

Scenario 1: God exists, Guy One enters Kingdom of God, Guy Two doesn't.

Scenario 2: God doesn't exist. Both Guy One and Guy Two die like every other believer and non-believer on the face of the earth.

So, Scenario 1 Winner: Guy One. L-ser: Guy Two.

Scenario 2: No real Winner, but no real l-ser, either. So, in either Scenario, Guy One wins, so to speak, whilst Guy Two doesn't.

You can't say 'I told you so' when you're d-ad.

This gave me an idea for logic: If you don't believe, you should, because if you turn out wrong in your beliefs, you not missing out on anything; whereas, if you are right in your belief in God, you get a great benefit.
Permalink
| December 5, 2010, 10:06 pm
Quoting Phazezorz .

...

Ok, so, you just re-said what I said (as well as Pascal) and tried to pass it off as your own...

/bravo.
I just restated it. I actually came up with that idea without knowing you(or Pascal) had said so before.

Permalink
| December 6, 2010, 12:28 am
Quoting Phazezorz .
That better be sarcasm, boi.

Sorry, I missread what you said, will you forgive me?
Permalink
| December 6, 2010, 12:34 am
That student is a smart-@ss, I'd give him an F for doing such a thing.

Plus, he had a stup1d answer.


Permalink
| December 6, 2010, 12:39 am
Quoting Phazezorz .

<.<

Nyeh, why not.

Thanks. I was really kind of tired when I said that.
Permalink
| December 6, 2010, 8:05 pm
Quoting Nick Shelton
That student is a smart-@ss, I'd give him an F for doing such a thing.

Plus, he had a stup1d answer.

Hate to get off topic, but why would he deserve an F? Because the teacher didn't like him?

A students personal opinions should not affect a teacher's opinion of their work. If I decided to write a paper arguing that black is white, and I do so with great eloquence and skill, and make good arguments, do I deserve an F because my basic premise is obviously wrong?

P.S. Answer the question, not the example.

P.P.S If you don't, I will eat you.

Permalink
| February 12, 2011, 8:16 pm
Other topics
New contest!!! Updated today



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop CFOL (Christian Fans of LEGO)


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use