Friday, November 18, 2011

In the space provided, write the letter of the term or phrase that best describes how each # item functions.?

__ 1. neuron cell body with dendrites

__ 2. action potential

__ 3. cerebrum

__ 4. cerebellum

__ 5. taste bud

__ 6. cochlea

a. wrinkled boxing glove

b. snail shell

c. small head of cauliflower

d. steep hill

e. uprooted tree

f. flower bud

In the space provided, write the letter of the term or phrase that best describes how each # item functions.?
1] E

2] D

3] A

4] C

5] F

6] B

Hope this helps! =]
Reply:ooohhhhhh how lazy people annoy me...

try reading and studying.

evening shoes

Do you like these names?

My sister and I were just throwing out baby names for fun.

My sister likes these girl names:

~Halo (Greek: divine aura)

~Sora (Japanese: sky) (Native American: bird who soars in sky) (Korean: shell)

I Like these girl names:

~Zahara (Arabic: flower, most exquisite)

~Leena (Arabic: tenderness)

....So, what do you think? We wanted to choose names that were different but not made up.

***Don't think of these as just baby names but names they can grow old with.

Do you like these names?
I like Sora and Leena, those names are really unique but not weirdly so
Reply:The only ones that I think would age well are Sora and Leena. Halo just sounds silly as a name and Zahara is too Brangelina baby.
Reply:~Halo- it sounds too sci-fi and i'm reminded of that videogame

~Sora- unique but i don't know

~Zahara- it's pretty

~Leena- that's fine but i'd just use one E
Reply:okay so halo is cute but like you said wen they grow up they may have a difficult time. so i would go with sora leena because i love both names. to me zahara is cute but not original it makes it seem like your tryna copy angelina jolie lil girl's name plus wen they get older they be judged as african and you know as much as me that some people judge others by names and if you don't want your child to be judged by those ignorant *** people that isn't the best name. i hope this has been helpful
Reply:halo seems like a boys name. but maybe that's just cuz i have a guy friend names "halo"...
Reply:Zahara and Leena are really cute.
Reply:I reckon Halo and Zahara are sweet names I love different unique names :)
Reply:I love Halo. Second choice is Zahara.
Reply:I don't think Halo would age well. It seems up there with the cheesy Angel and Princess. Sora is nice though, although I prefer Zora

Zahara is a beautiful name but too associated with the Jolie-Pitts. If that doesn't put you off then it's a lovely name, exotic and unusual but not weird. I imagine it would age beautifully too. Leena is nice too but I prefer it as a nickname for names ending in -lina.
Reply:I like Zahara it sounds really pretty..

check out my question please...?
Reply:I LOVE the name Leena, I'd probably pick that one.
Reply:sorry to put a damper on your names but Halo is a computer game.

Unless your arabic Zahara wont fit.

Leena is OK

My wife and I used the first two letters of her name and the last two of mine to make Kyan.
Reply:I like Zahara and Leena.

Korean is okay and Sora and Halo I don't like.

Decorating ideas for beach (Cape Cod style) theme living room?

Here's is the set up,

My living room has two side by side windows on one wall.

I have a back door entrance into the room. With a window in the door. The kitchen and living room open up to a big opening, there's no wall in between. On the other wall is a small closet.

I have a colonial blue style love seat, in one corner the tv area is across room in the corner, coffee table is in front of love seat, its glass coffee table, with shells that I arrange under neath so you can see through the top glass and see them. The rocking chair is oak wood, near one window and I have blinds up w/ white lace curtains.

In front of the window is a plant stand with 3 shelves, one has a glass vase w/flowers, 2nd is a shell and 3rd has a picture

In the corner near the closet is table with a lamp, shells w/ sand

I have painting on the wall of a beach behind my tv stand

I have sea gull lamp next to my tv.

Decorating ideas for beach (Cape Cod style) theme living room?
Go here:

Happy living to you. :o)

Homemade halloween costumes ideas (look or else) muhaha!?

Here are some of (SOME) of my homemade halloween costume ideas for one person and groups! ENJOY (OR ELSE)

Btw hope yall have a happy halloween

One person costumes:

1. Ghost

Don’t just stick the sheet over your head! Instead, cut a neck hole from an old sheet and wear it over your body. Take a second sheet, and drape and pin it (like a toga) to add a floaty, ghostly flair. Powder your face and your hair white, and drape light chains over your shoulders.

2. Witch

To make a witch’s hat from poster board, cut one large circle for the brim, then cut out the space where the head will fit. Cut another large circle, and cut a slit into the center of the circle. Also cut one-inch slits all around the outside of the circle to make tabs. Wrap this circle around to make a cone, then attach the cone to the brim with the tabs (use masking tape to hold the tabs). Spray paint the entire hat black. Wear black flowing clothes and striped leggings.

3. Mummy

Cut strips of off-white fabric, like muslin or cheesecloth, and wrap around the arms, legs, body, and head, but make sure the mummy can see and breathe!

4. Zombie

Take any old clothes and distress them by fraying the edges and dusting with talcum powder. Pick a theme---you could be a zombie groom, cheerleader, or waitress.

5. Skeleton

Using white or glow-in-the-dark fabric paint, paint a skeleton onto black sweats. Use face paints to make your face look like a skull.

6. Vampire

Wrap a large piece of dark velvet around your neck for a cape. Pin in place with an old brooch. Wear dark clothes in romantic fabrics like crushed velvet and satin.

7. Cat

Start with a leotard and tights. Make a tail by stuffing a tube of fabric. Ears are easy to make from a headband and cardboard. You can also use fake fur for the ears and tail or to trim the leotard. Use face paint to make your eyes look cat-like and to add whiskers.

8. Dog

Add felt spots to a white or brown sweatsuit. Make floppy dog ears out of felt, and hot glue them to a headband. Paint a puppy dog face, complete with a big spot around one eye, to complete the costume.

9. Bumblebee or Ladybug

Paint poster board to look like the body and wings of a bumblebee or ladybug. Wear with leotard and tights to match, and attach wires to a headband for antennae.

10. Butterfly

Sew two long pieces of bright, shimmery fabric down the back of a long-sleeved leotard. Sew the other end of each piece to the underside of a sleeve, so that when you lift your arms, your wings flutter out. Add antennae.

11. Spider

Wear black clothes. Make six tubes of black fabric, and sew three on each side of your shirt or leotard. Tie each set of three legs together with strings, and attach the strings to your shirt sleeves so that when you move your arms, all of your legs move, too.

12. Nun

A nun’s habit is a basic black tunic (a shapeless dress with long sleeves). If you have a sewing machine, then you can make a tunic! Look online for patterns. Add a white collar to the habit. Then, measure a strip of white poster board to fit around your head, and hot glue black fabric to this strip. Bobby-pin the poster board to your hair.

13. Friar or Monk

Make a brown tunic, and wrap a simple rope around the waist.

14. Lady in Waiting

Make a simple, velvet tunic dress, or look in thrift stores for a long-sleeved, floor-length, dress. Wrap gold cording under the bustline to create an Empire waist, and crisscross the cording in front. Make a cone hat (like for the witch’s hat, only leave off the brim), and attach a translucent scarf to the top of the hat.

15. Fairy

Make a short, sleeveless tunic in a light, flowing fabric, or wear a leotard and a tulle skirt (which you can make by stitching gathered tulle to a strip of elastic). You can make wings by bending coat hangers into the desired shape and covering with white pantyhose. Tie the wings to the body by crossing in front and wrapping under the bustline.

16. Angel

Make a short, sleeveless tunic dress, similar to the fairy’s, or wear light, flowing clothes. Make a halo from tinsel garland. Follow the fairy directions for wings.

17. Devil

Sculpt horns from papier mache or plaster of paris strips (you can find this in any craft or hobby store). Attach these to a headband with additional papier mache or plaster of paris strips, and paint red. You can also make a pitchfork from the same material, and attach to a wooden dowel or a broomstick handle.

18. Fairy Godmother

Begin with an existing secondhand prom dress or any shiny, sparkly skirt and a leotard. Then gather fabric (tulle, satin, or any shimmery material) around your waist, and stitch or staple it so that it drapes down the skirt. Create a wand and a crown from any stiff paper, and decorate with paint, rhinestones, sequins, and glitter.

19. Statue of Liberty

Use light green fabric to make a toga. Make the crown from cardboard. For her torch, use a toilet paper tube painted to match the fabric, and glue red and orange tissue paper to the top for flames.

20. Roman Athlete

Wear a toga, and make a laurel wreath from fake leaves. Wear plain sandals, or try spray painting sandals gold and crisscrossing gold cord around your legs.

21. Father Time

Cut a sickle out of cardboard and spray paint it silver. Glue it onto a long wooden rod (like a broom handle). Wear a black toga, and carry the sickle and a clock or an hourglass.

22. Mother Nature

Wear a neutral-toned, long-sleeved leotard and tights. Drape shimmering, translucent blue and green fabric like a toga and safety pin to the leotard. Attach fake flowers and leaves to the draped fabric, and tuck a few flowers behind your ear.

23. Caveman or Cavewoman

Make a toga from animal print fabric. Cut the edges into jagged points. Carry a club.

24. Bobby Soxer

A poodle skirt is easy to make from a large piece of felt. Cut a large circle, and then cut out the waist to fit. Sew elastic to the inside of the waist, and hem the bottom. Then make the poodle (or any other shape) out of felt, and glue to the skirt with fabric glue. Use pompoms and rickrack to decorate. Wear with a simple blouse, a scarf around the neck, saddle shoes, and white socks, and pull your hair into a ponytail.

25. Flapper

Begin with a basic shift dress, and use fabric glue to attach fringe in layers, or you can simply wear a pretty slip and a string of fake pearls. To make the flapper headpiece, cut a length of sequined elastic to fit snugly around your head, then stitch the ends together. Use craft glue to add a feather. Finish the costume with fishnet stockings and heels.

26. Tourist

Wear a tacky, Hawaiian print shirt, khaki shorts, sandals with socks, sunglasses, and a camera around your neck.

27. Beauty Pageant Queen

Make a sash from satin, and use glitter paint to write your title on the sash. Wear an old formal or prom dress and a tiara (or make your own crown from cardboard and plastic jewels). Carry a bouquet of fake roses.

28. Jailbird

Paint white stripes on a black sweatshirt and sweatpants. Make a ball and chain by wrapping bunched-up newspaper in papier mache or plaster of paris strips and painting it black when it dries, then use strips of cardboard (painted black) for the chain.

29. Rag Doll

Wear old, baggy clothes and striped tights. Stitch or safety pin squares of rags to your costume for patches. Make two long braids from red yarn and sew to the inside of an old hat.

30. Scarecrow

Wear a flannel shirt and overalls, and stuff the ends of the sleeves and pant legs with straw. Top with an old porkpie hat.

31. Swashbuckler or Pirate

Wear tight black pants tucked into black boots and a white, peasant-style top. Make a cape by wrapping any fabric around your shoulders and pinning with an old brooch. Cut cardboard into a sword and spray paint it or wrap in tin foil.

32. Gypsy

Wear layered, colorful, flowing garments. Tie a scarf around your hair, and wear large hoop earrings, jangly bracelets, and a chunky costume necklace. Carry a deck of cards to tell fortunes.

33. Mermaid

Begin with nude-colored leotard and fishnet tights. Wrap a long piece of shimmery material around your waist---it should trail on the floor behind you---and stitch it together in the front. Cut the fabric that trails on the floor into a fish-tail. If you can find two large plastic shells, use low-temp hot glue to attach these over your leotard. If not, then cut shell shapes out of the same shimmery fabric. Accessorize with plastic seaweed (the kind used in fish tanks) and fishnet.

34. Bellydancer

Add sequined elastic, fringe, and beads to an existing bra or bikini top. Wear a coordinating skirt and sandals.

35. Hula Dancer

A grass skirt is easy to make! At a craft store, purchase green and brown raffia, and staple it in bunches to a long strip of fabric. Wear a brightly colored, flowered bathing suit, and wrap the grass skirt around your waist. String fake flowers to make a lei.

36. Cabaret Dancer

Wear a black leotard, fishnet tights, and heels. Make a showgirl-style headpiece by cutting a half circle from cardboard. Attach this firmly to a headband with masking tape. Paint the entire half circle (front and back) black, and cover with black glitter. Hot glue three long peacock feathers to the back of the half-circle. Don’t forget the red lipstick!

37. Superhero

Wear sweatpants and a sweatshirt in your superhero’s colors (or make up your own superhero). Make the superhero’s logo from felt, and glue it to the sweatshirt. Make an easy cape by wrapping a piece of fabric around your shoulders; hold it together with safety pins.

38. Clown

Wear bright, oversized clothes, like plaid pants, a striped shirt, suspenders, and a large bowtie. Look in thrift stores for a pair of shoes that is way too big, then put one of your own pair of shoes inside the oversized pair so that you can wear them without falling over. Clown costumes can also be made from old band or baton twirler costumes, western wear, and secondhand suits (think hobo!). See the Rag Doll directions on how to make a yarn wig.

39. Jack-in-the-box

Cut armholes and legholes from a large box, and decorate the box to look like a jack-in-the-box. Leave the top of the box completely open, and make “suspenders” for the box by cutting long strips of bright fabric and stapling them firmly. Attach large pompoms to a long-sleeved, brightly colored shirt and wear striped leggings or tights. Add a jester’s hat and clown makeup.

40. Robot

Use a large box, and cut arm, leg, and neck holes. Spray paint the box silver, and use pipe cleaners, wire, and tin foil to make dials and other robot parts. Make a tin foil hat, and add wires for antennae.

41. Television

Cut out the front of the box to make a television screen. Cut a neck hole in the bottom of the box, and wear the box on your head. Use pipe cleaners to make antennae. Dress as a newscaster and carry a microphone to be a “talking head”.

42. Lego Piece

Take two circular cardboard boxes (you can find these in a craft or hobby store), and attach them with masking tape to the large box. Cut holes for your arms, legs, and neck, and spray paint the entire box a bright color.

43. Gift

Cover a large box in wrapping paper, and add a large bow (or wear the bow on your head). Cut holes for your arms, legs, and neck.

44. Animal in a Pet Store

Start with any animal costume, like a cat or a dog. Using a craft knife, carefully cut strips out of a large refrigerator box to create a cage. Cut leg holes out of the bottom, and spray paint the entire box metallic silver. Attach a sign to the “cage” that says “Kittens 4 Sale” or “Puppies 4 Sale”.

45. Bug Caught In Spider’s Web

Start with your desired insect costume. Make a large web by tying and knotting white rope or yarn. Attach this web to the back of your costume---make sure to attach it to your arms and legs so that you seem stuck in the web.

46. Person Taking a Bath

Cut leg holes in a large, plastic tub. Glue cotton balls (for bubbles) all around the top of the tub, and attach a small rubber ducky to the side. Wear a nude-colored leotard and tights and a shower cap, and carry a scrub brush.

47. Playing Card

Take two large pieces of poster board. Set the two pieces on top of each other and punch one hole about six inches from both corners. Use heavy yarn, rope, or fabric to tie the two pieces of poster board together. Paint both sides of a sandwich board to look like a playing card, such as the Queen of Hearts (add a crown and wear red underneath) or a Joker (add a jester’s hat and wear brightly colored clothes).

48. Clock

Follow the directions for the playing card, only cut the two pieces of poster board into circles and paint to look like a clock’s face. You could also add movable hour and minute hands by cutting these shapes out of additional poster board and attaching in the center. Wear brown or black clothes underneath.

49. Fried Egg or Deviled Egg

Begin with a white sheet, and paint a large yellow circle in the center (or glue on a circle from yellow felt). Cut holes for your arms and neck. Add horns and a pitchfork to be a deviled egg.

50. Spaghetti and Meatballs

Take a brown or red sheet, and use fabric glue to stick on large red or brown pompoms (for the meatballs). Cut holes for your arms and neck. The stringy part of a mop (a new one) becomes the spaghetti---using low-temp hot glue, attach it to the inside of a plastic bowl, and wear the bowl on your head.

Group costumes:

(numbers take to long)

spa girl.

Ancient Egyptians and mummies.

cows and milk maids (may be embarcing i guess or funny..)

M n M's (it would be kewl if u actually had some m n m's wit u )

the Flintstones

The adam's family

old school 70's basketball team

Village People

The Simpsons

door to door salesmen (lol)

Wizard of Oz

prisoners chained to each other

Fred, Shaggy and the gang of Scooby Doo

group of '80s flick horror film murders; freddy krueger, jason voorhees, Halloween guy, texas chainsaw guy, etc....THE SCREAM TEAM!!


flight attendents



One of you could be a babysitter and the rest "babys"

Fanta Girls



plug and socket

dead cheerleaders

chess peices

pirates of the carribean

Bacon %26amp; Eggs

Traffic Lights

Fork and Spoon


cards (hearts , diamonds ,spades, clubs.)

girl sailors


dukes of harrards

looney tunes

justice legue

go-go girls


hair stylists

one of you be a rock star the rest have cameras and all




the jetsons

beauty queens ( everyone with a differant state)


the incredibles

cruela deavil ( 101 dalmations get some people to be a dalemation and someone to be cruela deavil)

prom queen ( rly only for one but...have people take some pictures of u..)

Homemade halloween costumes ideas (look or else) muhaha!?
Wow, girl, you went to a bunch for work for all that. Someone's gotta get an ides or two from what you're puttin' down here. Bravo.

Q: have you been any of these characters?...come can tell us...we can keep a secret
Reply:Wow, exactly what I am looking for!! thanx ROCK!! Report It

Reply:Thank you dear!
Reply:There are some really good ideas there, thanks :)
Reply:I think your better off putting a pot on your head and carrying a bag with white powder inside.
Reply:Dress up as a cow and let others mount you
Reply:dress up like a guy humping a bear like on SuperTroopers

Spirit week shirt?

Which shirt should I wear tomorrow for Hawiian t-shirt day? I would wear either one with a flower in my hair, a shell necklace.

Shirt 1-

Shirt 2-

(with a tank underneath)

Spirit week shirt?
the first one becuse it is more name brand and it look liek you just dint go out in buy it like it was in your closet very cute shirt if u have the first one
Reply:the 2nd one is more hawiian! very cute.
Reply:The second one is more "Hawaiian-ish"
Reply:LOVE the 2 one!!!!!!!!!!! so cute!
Reply:the second!!

Boxing Shoes

Have you been cheated by theory of evolution too?

The basis for scientific investigation is the belief that some pattern of design and order can be found in the natural world. All scientists, evolutionist scientists included, hold this view. The evolution-oriented publication "LIFE Science Library" confirms this with their statement, "The work of the scientist is based upon a conviction that nature is basically orderly. Evidence to support this faith can be seen with the naked eye---in the design of a honeycomb or a mollusk's shell---but scientists come upon order at every level of being. The physicist finds it in the arrangement of atoms on a needle's point, the entomologist in the structure of a mosquito's eyes, the crystallographer in the architecture of crystals." (The Scientist, p.16) Design and order, especially complex design and elegant order is easily recognized by those of even less than average intelligence. Multi-layered design can even be awe-inspiring. It clearly can not be achieved without intelligence.

The knowledge of intelligent designs found in nature is not religion. You can not find these two words in the Bible. It is common sense. (Of course, truth is truth, no matter where it is found, whether in Bible or in Nature.) Even if one believes in intelligent design, he is not obliged to believe that the Designer is the God of the Bible. Who the Designer is, is another question for another study, in philosophy or comparative religion. However, intelligent design theory is religion-friendly because it is parallel in thinking. But evolutionism is contrary to common sense and is religion-hostile. We have many social laws that are parallel to the teachings of the Bible, such as "do not kill, do not steal," etc. If we deny everything that is parallel to the Bible, what kind of society are we going to have?

Is this world, with all her marvels, from origin of design or accident? Creation means designs with a Creator's mindful planning and purpose and evolution means accidents due to blind unknown mindless force.

Let us say, we have a friend who has just had an accident in which his automobile was mangled, both his wife and only son died and he lost a leg himself. If, upon hearing the news, we go and congratulate him for the accident and wish him many more like it, we have just offended the friend. He thinks we are idiots and rightly so.

Did accidents produce a bicycle or a computer for our use? Did accidents put our eyes on the front instead of on the back of our heads? Did accidents give us a heart that beats more than 100,000 times in a single day as long as we live? Did accidents provide all kinds of fruit, all kinds of flowers and all kinds of animals for our enjoyment? Did accidents produce the beautiful persons we are in love with?

Accidents never accomplish anything meaningful. They are almost always destructive. Have we ever seen or heard of an automobile or its driver improved after an accident? If you are aware of such case, the whole world is waiting to hear from you. We may not need auto insurance after all ! There are, sorry to say, idiots in the academic institutions who propagandize the evolution fable, because they have locked themselves in atheistic naturalistic paradigm.

Science has been known as refined common sense; common sense is the foundation of science. But those who locked themselves in naturalistic paradigm refined common sense out of science, making their science refined nonsense!

A legal battle was recently fought in an American court whether Intelligent Design theory can be mentioned alongside of the theory of evolution in biology classes. A judge may tell us whether it is allowed or not allowed to do so according to the law. But he can not tell us what truth is. To find truth is our own responsibility. The evolutionists are afraid of competition; they like to continue to enjoy long-standing hegemony for brain-washing of the young people. Thus they make scientific theory a dogma to keep, impeding the progress of true science. It is ironic that in the name of science, evolutionists defend a theory that is a product of the early nineteenth century when there was no electron microscope, no molecular biology and no detailed knowledge of the components of a living cell and their functions?

It is unnatural and illogical to believe in evolution, Everything seen and observed defies the theory. Creation is not a fairy tale; it is simply common sense.

Have you been cheated by theory of evolution too?
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.

Yet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This

"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.


Although this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.

Darwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:

1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth.

2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all.

3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.

The power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life—time, mud, and chance—is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.

In this section, I will examine these three basic points in general outlines:

The First Insurmountable Step:

(The Origin of Life)

The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" originate?

Since the theory of evolution denies creation and any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable rules of biology.


On the other hand, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate from it after a while.

Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. However, it was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.

Even when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."30

For a long time, advocates of the theory of evolution resisted these findings. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.

The French biologist Louis Pasteur

The Russian biologist Alexander Oparin

The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth. Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.

(Inconclusive Efforts in the Twentieth Century)

The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:

Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.31

Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The best known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth's atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.

Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the real Earth conditions.32

After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.33

All the evolutionists' efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in Earth magazine in 1998:

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?34

One of the evolutionists' gravest deceptions is the way they imagine that life could have emerged spontaneously on what they refer to as the primitive earth, represented in the picture above. They tried to prove these claims with such studies as the Miller experiment. Yet they again suffered defeat in the face of the scientific facts; The results obtained in the 1970s proved that the atmosphere on what they describe as the primitive earth was totally unsuited to life.

All information about living beings is stored in the DNA molecule. This incredibly efficient information storage method alone is a clear evidence that life did not come into being by chance, but has been purposely designed, or, better to say, marvellously created.


The primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a great impasse regarding the origin of life is that even those living organisms deemed to be the simplest have incredibly complex structures. The cell of a living thing is more complex than all of our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing organic chemicals together.

The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. The probability of proteins, the building blocks of a cell, being synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10950 for an average protein made up of 500 amino acids. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is considered to be impossible in practical terms.

The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is an incredible databank. If the information coded in DNA were written down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900 volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500 pages each.

A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.35

No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated from natural causes, then it has to be accepted that life was "created" in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation.


The second important point that negates Darwin's theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as "evolutionary mechanisms" were understood to have, in reality, no evolutionary power.

Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism of "natural selection." The importance he placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his book: The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection…

Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.

Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:

Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.36

(Lamarck's Impact)

So, how could these "favorable variations" occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time. According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.

(The French biologist Lamarck)

Lamarck thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example to this line of reasoning, he suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of grass. With the discovery of the laws of genetics, it was seen that acquired traits could not actually be inherited at all. As a result, Lamarckism had been invalidated by science by the beginning of the twentieth century.

Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book The Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales over time.37

However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.

The direct effect of random mutations is harmful. Above is a mutated calf which was born with two heads.


In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930's. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.

Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.38

Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself," as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no such any imaginary process called "evolution" could have taken place.


The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.

According to this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."

If such animals ever really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed.... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39

The larger picture belongs to a 100-million-year-old Nautilus fossil. On the left is a Nautilus living in our day. When we compare the fossil with today's Nautilus (on the right is the cross section of the creature's shell), we see that they both have the same identical characteristics.

(Darwin's Hopes Shattered)

However, although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All of the fossils, contrary to the evolutionists' expectations, show that life appeared on Earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

One famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.40

This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed, without any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin's assumptions. Also, this is very strong evidence that all living things are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor is that it was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.41

Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the earth. That means that "the origin of species," contrary to Darwin's supposition, is not evolution, but creation.


The subject most often brought up by advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors are supposed to have existed. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:

1. Australopithecus

2. Homo habilis

3. Homo erectus

4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call man's so-called first ape-like ancestors Australopithecus, which means "South African ape." These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these apes belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.42

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo," that is "man." According to their claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century's most important evolutionists, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."43

By outlining the link chain as Australopithecus %26gt; Homo habilis %26gt; Homo erectus %26gt; Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is one another's ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same time.44

Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region.45

This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, explains this deadlock of the theory of evolution, although he is an evolutionist himself:

What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.46

Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is "upheld" with the help of various drawings of some "half ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media and course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific foundation.

Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who carried out research on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.

Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science" ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"—that is, depending on concrete data—fields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are "extra-sensory perception"—concepts such as telepathy and sixth sense—and finally "human evolution." Zuckerman explains his reasoning:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible – and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.47

The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.

Imaginary representations of 'primitive' human beings are frequently employed in stories carried by pro-evolution newspapers and magazines. The only source for these stories, based on these imaginary representations, are the imaginations of their authors. Yet evolution has suffered such a defeat in the face of the scientific facts that fewer reports concerning evolution now appear in scientific magazines.


Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.

Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the eye's retina. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the "center of vision." These electric signals are perceived in this center as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.

The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely dark, and that no light reaches the place where it is located. Thus, the "center of vision" is never touched by light and may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.

The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the twentieth century has not been able to attain it. For instance, look at the book you are reading, your hands with which you are holding it, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were established, much research has been done, plans and designs have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.

For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.

Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot?

Compared to cameras and sound recording machines, the eye and ear are much more complex, much more successful and possess far superior designs to these products of high technology.

If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalizes in the center of hearing in the brain.

The situation in the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. It does not let any sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the brain. In your completely silent brain, you listen to symphonies, and hear all of the noises in a crowded place. However, were the sound level in your brain was measured by a precise device at that moment, complete silence would be found to be prevailing there.

As is the case with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The results of these efforts are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound. Despite all of this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working on this endeavor, no sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear. Think of the highest-quality hi-fi systems produced by the largest company in the music industry. Even in these devices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or when you turn on a hi-fi you always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the human body's technology are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as does a hi-fi; rather, it perceives sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since the creation of man.

So far, no man-made visual or recording apparatus has been as sensitive and successful in perceiving sensory data as are the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing and hearing are concerned, a far greater truth lies beyond all this.

(To Whom Does the Consciousness That Sees and Hears within the Brain Belong?)

Who watches an alluring world in the brain, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds, and smells the rose?

The stimulations coming from a person's eyes, ears, and nose travel to the brain as electro-chemical nerve impulses. In biology, physiology, and biochemistry books, you can find many details about how this image forms in the brain. However, you will never come across the most important fact: Who perceives these electro-chemical nerve impulses as images, sounds, odors, and sensory events in the brain? There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives all this without feeling any need for an eye, an ear, and a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Of course it does not belong to the nerves, the fat layer, and neurons comprising the brain. This is why Darwinist-materialists, who believe that everything is comprised of matter, cannot answer these questions.

For this consciousness is the spirit created by God, which needs neither the eye to watch the images nor the ear to hear the sounds. Furthermore, it does not need the brain to think.

Everyone who reads this explicit and scientific fact should ponder on Almighty God, and fear and seek refuge in Him, for He squeezes the entire universe in a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored, shadowy, and luminous form.









We live our entire life within our brain. The people that we see, the flowers we smell, the music we listen to, the fruits we taste, the wetness we feel on our hand… All of these form in our brains. In reality, neither colors, nor sounds, nor images exist in our brain. The only things that exist in the brain are electric signals. This means that we live in a world formed by the electric signals in our brain. This is not an opinion or a hypothesis, but the scientific explanation of how we perceive the world.

(A Materialist Faith)

The information we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is a incompatible with scientific findings. The theory's claim regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the required intermediate forms have never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as an unscientific idea. This is how many ideas, such as the Earth-centered universe model, have been taken out of the agenda of science throughout history.

However, the theory of evolution is kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to represent criticisms directed against it as an "attack on science." Why?

The reason is that this theory is an indispensable dogmatic belief for some circles. These circles are blindly devoted to materialist philosophy and adopt Darwinism because it is the only materialist explanation that can be put forward to explain the workings of nature.

Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A well-known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is "first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist":

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.48

These are explicit statements that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive just for the sake of adherence to materialism. This dogma maintains that there is no being save matter. Therefore, it argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, out of inanimate matter. This is a precept contrary both to reason and science. Yet Darwinists continue to defend it just so as "not to allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Anyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Knowing. This Creator is God, Who created the whole universe from non-existence, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.

They said:"Glory be to You!

We have no knowledge except what You have taught us.

You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."

(Surat al-Baqarah: 32) Holy Quran


The Truth of This Life:


Allah (God) is Known Through Reason:


The Nightmare Of Disbelief:


Millions of Proofs that Refute Darwinism


Evolution Deceit:



Never Plead Ignorance:


Never Forget


Not By Chance:




Signs Of God:


The Collapse Of The Theory Of Evolution In 20 Questions:




The Disasters Darwinism Brought To Humanity:


A Definitive Reply To Evolutionist Propaganda:


Main Reference:


Two wonderful VIDEOS:


The miracle of man's creation (video):

Related site:


Other Islamic references:



Reply:Hey, copying and pasting responses are we? That really is the best way to show you are an independent and smart thinker.

Why cant you religious people stop reciting passages from old fictions and start looking at the real world.

Your a bunch of mindless morons. Report It

Reply:Dude, I will not read that question because it is WAY TOO LONG. But I do like the last paragraph. ;-)
Reply:but maybe theyre both mixed together. a day in god's eyes may be a billion years on earth maybe his plan was evolution that he made us out of nothing while the other animals evolved. evolution kinda makes sense. look at the whole thing
Reply:Dude, you've got diarhea of the mouth. Ask your question in 10 or less words. I believe in God %26amp; evolution - one does not cancel out the other.
Reply:Intelligent Design is a fraud. Intelligent Design is the new code word for Biblical Creationism.

No one, if he were to be honest, who believes in ID can tell you that the "designer" is anyone but the Christian God..
Reply:Wow,that's what I call resorceful thinking, You really know how to light it up. I think everyone has been blinded by what they see and not the proven facts of life. everyone lives life thinking that they are invencible or so it would seem.
Reply:Wow, you must hate life.
Reply:Well, I couldn't really find a question in there to answer...seemed more like someone eager to tell everyone all about a personal philosophy. Oh well, that works for me too.

Just to let you know where I'm coming from: I fancy myself to be a believer of an evolution/ID hybrid. Intelligent design means believing that the universe was designed by some kind of being; I simply believe that that design was accomplished through evolution. Ties the two together quite nicely.

That's why I think accidents can happen the way they can: the universe has a set of rules I like to call physics. Once you get physics in place (whether by God or who-knows-where), everything else just follows logically. All that order and symmetry that makes up science results from those pre-established rules: fractals, chaos theory, all that fun stuff. I don't pretend to be a mathematician or even a scientist, but I know that everything follows those rules, like you said. Where they came from is up in the air, but they are undeniably there.

That said, one of the basic rules is the rule of eventuality: try something enough times, it's (almost) bound to happen. I say "almost" because it's conceivable that it could never happen, but as the number of trials increases, the chances of it not happening dwindle down to nothing. Sure, it seems impossible for a genetic code to assemble, but when you think about it on a planetary scale, happening all over the earth for millions of years, eventually it's going to happen at a basic level. The theory of evolution takes over from there.

Personally, I believe that God had a hand in speeding things along. But I see no problem with the above belief, and find that it offers a better explanation than most.

Sorry this is so long...kudos to anyone who actually reads through the whole thing!
Reply:and your point is?
Reply:The word 'accident' is not equivalent to the phrase 'car crash'.

Evolution is not inconsistent with religious belief. Many evolutionary scientists are religious.

People make computers, that doesn't mean that someone makes bananas.

Order CAN occur without intelligence. Happens all the time. Accidents produce clouds, crystals, lotsa beautiful things.

Before rejecting evolution, you should first understand it.

The fact the the Bible includes some good rules, such as don't kill, doesn't mean everything it says is right.

Those who say that science is refined common sense are wrong. Common sense says the sun revolves around the Earth. That turns out to be wrong; the Earth spins.

In science classes, students should learn science, not theology.

Your "question" is way too long. If you were sincerely interested in these issues, the writings of Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould (among others) would help, but from the tenor of your "question" I doubt you are.

Wedding HELP?

Hello, i am getting Married next year and i need help! does this sound and look ok ?

i am having an Ocean theme wedding

my centerpieces

are Plastic giant wine cups with bule betta fish in there with aqua color lights and a big shell at the bottom

1) i was thinking of putting a light it there just to make it glow ?

light or no light ?

and i was going to have Star fish around the table and candles

for the family Tables i am getting SandCastles with candles around also i was thinking of cutting a hole on top of the sand castle to up flowers on top

2) Flowers or no flowers?

or Leave sandcastle as is?

and for the table i was gonna do a white table Cloth and on top i was gonna get 4 diffrent color bules and greens and its gonna look like this but in my colors

3) Does it look nice or not ?

Wedding HELP?
gratz on the weddig! go to and you can find stuff ull need
Reply:Use the light... it'll look good with the lights dimmed!

Use the flowers... it's a wedding! :)

I love the ribbon on the tables--blues and greens would look fantastic!!
Reply:Congrats! I would say add the light, add the flowers, and I like the tablecoth! It's very classy and nice looking. I hope I helped you! [ =
Reply:I love it! Sounds beutiful! I would put the lights in you can get lcd lights that stay lit and the batteries are little so they are easy to put in a wine glass. And I think no flowers for the sand castle no need and it will save money. Congrats and good luck!
Reply:LEAVE the FLOWERS they look very good! Don't do the sand castle...I really like the picture of the flowers! So if your having your wedding on a beach you still shouldn't do it! It looks great no matter what people tell you! If you like the sand castles its your wedding so whatever you want....But if you ask for suggestions i'm going to say the flowers!

Good luck!
Reply:best thing dont get married
Reply:It's hard to picture the giant wine glass with the beta fish in it... light or no light... I guess I just think the light would look weird.

Everything else seems just lovely!!! I do like the sand castle idea... but I think you don't have to cut a hole int he top for flowers... just the sand castle would be great!!! I think it's really nice looking as is!

The colored ribbons on the tables would be very nice as well, I just think who ever sat where the ribbons fall would get annoyed with them really fast.

But everything looks nice!

Good luck!
Reply:I think your theme for your wedding is very unique and very pretty. The sand castle should be left as it is with no flowers. Do the sand and shells around it like in the picture. And the table in your colors will look nice. A light to help make the water with the betta probably would look nice and help it "pop" or show up better. Congratulations! Hope everything turns out the way you envision it.
Reply:skip the fish idea . what are you gonna do with them after the wedding reception ?maybe you could get some plastic fish to but in there instead of real fish.i like the light idea with out the real fish. that way you wont have to worry about finding homes for them.there is no need for the flowers on the castle ether. it looks really good by its self.maybe you could do a floating candles in the wine glasses.put some blue food coloring in the water.that s just another option for is some cup cake stands thing those colors would look very nice on the tables. some floating fish and they have floating fish candles too.
Reply:well i love your theme. the castles and colors are goreous. everything will work out i found a website and it had soo many ideas here are some links:


Reply:k - I didn't see your 1st parter before I answered your 2nd part! haha

I %26lt;3 the sandcastles, but I think the seashells with the sandcastles on the centerpiece might be too much. I think the sand castles are pretty though - what about putting the sand castles and scattering some seashells around that and you could put those seashell candles on other tables - like around the cake, or the guest book, or on the bar, etc... I think light inside the castle would be so cool - try it at home first to make sure it doesn't get too hot - you have to think about if you are goin gto put a light in there, you'd have to have a plug or you could get some of those battery votives to put inside that way you get the light but don't have to worry about fire burning the sand or fire hazards, etc. I think if you look around you can find a better price, but here's what I'm talking about

I really like the cupcake stand that the other user (forgot to check the name) posted from Target.
Reply:I don't really know about the rest of it, but I wanted to say I wouldn't put a light in with the bettas, it might poison them.
Reply:Don't use real fish. They end up dying or pooping while people are eating. Not very fun to watch.