But its my life story casinos One of these days youre gonna leave this door open and Ill find out .

As shakespear said "Thus with a kiss, i die". here the kiss was the poem! and I was the debate. :)

I highly recommend 2 things :
1. What the Bleep do we know : http://www.whatthebleep.com
2. The Elegant Universe : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

I know nothing about Quantum physics, but it seems to me that the topic comes up more and more often in discussions relating to God, Philosophy of self, and general purpose of life questions....

enjoy,

Very nice debate here.

My post was more about the universe and the way it works rather than the existence of God. As I mentioned in the beginning my definition of God is sorta self-customized. I will talk about it later.

However, regarding "YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN READ OF THE BELIEFS IMPOSED TO YOU IN SCHOOL", I must say that all of us are affected by what we hear. I appreciate what I learned in school because it helped me reach my current level of understanding. Without it I would be more ignorant than what I am. As to what's right and what's wrong? How the world really works? Whether God exists or not? my answer is simple: nobody knows. You might say that, then why do you bother coming up with theories and reading others' theories, then I'll say: not to find answers, but to learn from what others have learned and experienced. To gain knowledge, not to find answers.

"dar rahe eshgh nashod kas be yaghin mahrame raz
har kasi bar hasabe fahm gomani darad"

Hey Nima,

It'd really like to hear a good reasoning on why you say that god does not exist rather than just saying "There is no evidence to support such an idea". This is just like if I said "evidences are all around us", this would not convince anyone who doesnt believe in god, that god exists, and neither does yours do the opposite.

Pooya presented his view of what he thinks god has done, and it doesnt sound contradictory. If say god didnt plan his creations and just randomly created it, it does not necessarilly mean that god doesnt exist; it could be part of an experiment. Though this does not prove that god must exist, but it also does not disprove his existence, and hence not a contradiction.

Hey Pooya,
I JUST READ YOUR ARTICLE AND I HAVE TO ADMIT IT WAS A GOOD ONE. THE ONLY PROBLEM WHICH IS CLEAR IS THAT YOU STILL HAVE NOT GOTTEN READ OF THE BELIEFS IMPOSED TO YOU IN SCHOOL. YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE WORLD BY TRIAL AND ERROR WHILE YOU KNOW ITS CONTRADICTORY. U COULD SIMLY SAY GOD DOES NOT EXIST OR ATLEAST THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH AN IDEA. THE WORLD WE LIVE IN HAS NO CREATOR AND THATS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO ACCEPT.

Pooya,

As for my debate part of the argument, it was meant as a joke and humer purposes, specially the woman and the frog, and the link which has an extra parantese at the end and hence doesnt work (if you can plz remove the parantese).

But my personal belief is much closer to the first part of your argument, that the stronger or rather "best fit" continues. So you have two sets of chromosomes, the male and the female. now from those, for every pair or what not, the best fit wins, and this best fit, is based on those two chromosomes, and also the previously selected ones (recursive definition). so the process starts, out of the first two (one from male one from female) the best is chosen and that will be the first chromosome out of the 46. now for the second comparison, the previous chosen chromosome is also considered, etc. and in the end, the xx/xy chromosomes are also chosen based on the previous chromosomes chosen. so in the end, a stronger set of 46 chorosomes are chosen (note not all needn't be the best fit) and the child development starts. as you can see, continuiously repeating this process from generation to generation can lead to many many different combinations (since the previous chosen sets are also considered).

Though this was just a crazy theory by myself (as i love giving theories like these) it is there to show that what khosrow is talking about is exactly what i have in mind. Mutation through non-random selection leads towards a better fit and evolved being. Though ofcourse, khosrows choice of words as always sound nicer and more scientific than mine.

Ali: Regarding the poll, your assumption is correct. That is what I mean by evolution is what a dictionary defines evolution to be.

Regarding the post, bring on the debate.

Khosrow: I don't know much about Quantum physics. Perhaps, I shoudn't have used the notion from Physics. Yet, I think you got my point that natural selection is acting like a filter. If you disagree I would like hear your argument.

survival of "most well suited" .. which I don't think is a counter-balance to increasing randomness. It is actually a perfect side-kick to it. Random mutations will be selected due to their particular suitability to an environment and will propagate.

But one thing.. Chaos (as referred to in Physics), is a much more general notion than Natural Selection (Survival of the Fittest). The first one moves large masses of subatomic particles away from each other, and the second one just rearranges much smaller groupings of the same thing in the process.

so, who knows, we all just might become dust in the air soon, just in different clumps!

This is about the vote:
I hope you don't assume that the people who believe in evolution, dont believe that god created it all. I'm taking evolution to be, in simple words, the evolving of creatures to fit their environment better.

say when the big bang happened, and from a very small mass, the universe was created, how then did the live creatures come to be through randomness? Also if due to randomness "the variations built-up and different creatures where born" why dont we see women giving birth to frogs? ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39176 )

It seems that everything is getting fitter and fitter, except the way you think about this world; that is moving towards chaos ;)