Quote by ender85

Quote by beethoven
Last May, I helped organize a New York University symposium on religion and science, with the participation of Mr. Flew and others. Our starting point was science's new knowledge that the universe's history is a story of quantum leaps of intelligence, the sudden yet systematic appearance of intrinsically intelligent systems arranged in an ascending order.

Many people assume that the intelligence in the universe somehow evolved out of nonintelligence, given chance and enough time, and in the case of living beings, through natural selection and random mutation. But even in the most hardheadedly materialistic scenario, intelligence and intelligent systems come fully formed from day one.

No, this is completely untrue. Claiming something is a "intelligent system" doesn't prove anything.

Quote by beethovenMatter came with all its ingenious, mathematically precise laws from the time it first appeared. Life came fully formed with the incredibly intelligent symbol processing of DNA, the astonishing phenomenon of protein-folding and the marvel of replication from its very first appearance. Language, the incarnation of conceptual thought with its inexplicable structure of syntax, symbols and semantics, appeared out of the blue, again with its essential infrastructure as is from day one.

You have no evidence here execpt "This is too complicated to be chance." That is not a rational arguement in this case. We don't know what the first life was like, but it could have been quite simple. All it needed was some form of replication and the rest could be developed from there by natural selection. As for language, there is no way to tell exactly when it developed, but it didn't have to be an all or nothing thing. Chimpanzees have been shown to be capable of learning some sign language.

Quote by beethovenThe evidence we have shows unmistakably that there was no progressive, gradual evolution of nonintelligence into intelligence in any of the fundamental categories of energy, life or mind. Each one of the three had intrinsically intelligent structures from the time each first appeared. Each, it would seem, proceeds from an infinitely intelligent mind in a precise sequence.

This is complete crap. Your saying intelligence is defined by "energy, life, and mind", then claiming they must be created by an "infinitely intelligent mind". This is completly irrational and you have given no evidence to support anything you have said.

Quote by beethovenScience assumes that the universe follows laws, which leads to the question of how the laws of nature came into being. How does the electron know what to do? In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking asks what breathes fire into the equations of science and gives a universe for them to describe. The answer to the question of why the universe exists, he concluded, would reveal to us "the mind of God."

Quote by beethovenWe can, if we want, declare that there is no reason why there are reasonable laws, no explanation for the fact there are explanations, no logic underlying logical processes. But this is manifestly not the conclusion adopted by Einstein, Heisenberg and, most recently, Antony Flew.

So, 2+2=4 therefore, God exists? This is not evidence, it is a belief. Just because we don't know everything about the nature of the universe doesn't mean there is any scientific justification for an all-powerful God. Saying some intelligent people believe in God doesn't prove anything. There are plenty of intelligent people who are atheists.

what your saying would be correct mathimaticaly and scientificaly except 2+2=5 not four infact the out comes for a single digit problem are astrinomicalso inorder for 2+2=4 to be in exsitance 1+1=2 has to be there first and then theanswers for each of these problems are so complexe and astronmical that 1+1 could equal anything btween negitave infinity and positive infinity so you can say because 2+2=4 god existis is not evidance because 2+2 dosn't always equal 4 infact it very rearly does

oh yea that was an egzact quote from an newspaper artical so of course it isn't going to have the whole story just a few quotes and answers that are only about a tenth of the interveiw the man also came up with proof on how evilution is a load and not say it's bull but actule proof along with a few things like

the experiment used to atempt to discover the orgines of life cretes a bacteria yes but that bacteria is not able to reproduce or even move so it would have had to have something change it and he dosn't say that it is specifcaly A single god or a group he just said that there is a more powerful beingthan humans that had somethingto do with are creation even if it was little green men wanting to see what they use to look like billions of millinia ago

Quote by ender85The differences between the manga and anime are frustrating. I think this is a series where you like the one you see first, because both stories are emotional and leave a lasting impression. When you switch to the other (manga/anime), you find a different story and don't like it as much.

Both the anime and the manga have great stories but they are significantly different from each other. That said, I think if you have a choice, you should watch the anime first. I love the music.

I agree... XP

I love the music too, I just wish that they didn't overplay most of the opening/closing songs so much... =/ And underplayed some songs, like smile was one song I thought they could've played a lot more of

thx for the fav ender-kun! i appreciate it