Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

[cabdirazzaq]

This thread is about the idotic statement by Charles Darwin, the statement that we have "evolved" from other species as he writes in his book "The orgin of species by natural selection". The theory dies in many different aspects such as logic, chemical biology and physics. I would recommend reading books such as Evolution Deceit, Evolution a theory in crisis and Darwins black box the bio chemical challenge to Evolution. It should be noted that this dogma which science has started to establish such as the disbelief in Allah(may he be exalted) is nothing but something new in history, great scientists were believers in their lord before this Darwin guy came along. Christians such as Da vinci, Newton and Galileo but also jews and muslims such as Khawarizmi and the famous Einstein who once said that science without religion is lame.
Now lets discuss the faults which this theory consists of, note that no evolutionist will ever be able to fight these statements.

Evolutionist claim that the first protein came by "it self" and then somehow formed the cell and then formed the first living being which came to "evolve" into other species. Did this Darwin guy know how advanced the cell is with his primitive microscope? A normal sized protein contains 288 amino acids which can be combined into 12 different types. These can be arranged into a numer 10 followed with 300 zeros[ A probability of 1*10'300 zeros] In mathematic terms 1*10 followed by 50 zeros is counted as 0 possibilty. I want to remind you that this is a rather modest protein molecule, some are giants consiting of thousands of amino acids. Now it faces another problem this protein must be left handen and not right handed sense the protein we find in living organisms are left handen, a 50% probability [1 times 10'150 zeros] Furthermore this protein must have the correct 3d structure called peptide bond, all this happend "by it self" as they claim. If we were to count all this together we would find a number of 1 times 10 followed by 950 zeros as a possibilty. Around the chance of you throwing a coin and getting tales 1miljon times in a row!

The story doesn´t end here, this was only one protein, a cell consists of hundreds of protein all of this appearently formed by chance. A couple of years after Darwins death a new molecule was found named DNA which supposedly could contain information equal to that of a library which is said to be in the nuclid of all 100 trillion cells in our body(they claim that this formed by chance) Believing in this is more stupid than believing that my dads car for instance was formed by chance or a video camera. Our eyes are alot more advanced than any camera yet people claim that our eyes were formed by chance and evolution while this camera was made by experts(even though it´s less advanced) and that it is made for a reason- namley taking pictures while we are without pupose???

And We created not the heaven and the earth and all that is between them without purpose!... [Q 38.27]


Secondly these evolutionists claim that the evolution came about because of mutatians even though -ladies and gentleman- not a single mutatation has EVER been documented to have given a positive outcome(think about that)
Gordon Talylor, an evolutionist says: In all the thousands of fly breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinc new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme"
Ranganathan said that an earthquake doesn´t help the city it destroys it.
Now lets say that all this fiction stuff happend and everthing just came about by chance and the first sea animals were created. Now the theory(which is already broken) is faced with another problem, the transition from sea to land. This can be refuted with some biological statements(which Darwin didn´t think about while he was guessing)
1. We land creatures use 40% of our energy to just cary around our weight while sea animals doesn´t need that, that means the animals must change their whole skellet system in a matter of minutes(sense a fish cannot live on land for more than a few minutes)
2. The temperature changes quickly on land while it changes very slowly in water, this means that the fish has to adapt a new heat retention system.
3. Gills must be changed into advanced lungs in a matter of minutes(just by "chance")
4. Kidneys must be created sense fish doesn´t need them because they are surrounded by water which they can easily clean themselves with.
5. A new system for repelling water must also "mutate".
A person with a sound mind will see that this is all impossible, imbossible and Impossible. Furthermore they claim that these reptiles which have been formed by chance must somehow develop wings, they say that wings came about while dinosaurs were chasing flies!!! This is not chocking sense Darwin and his theory is known to be stupid.

Darwin claimed for instance that aborgines and black negroes are as low as apes, gorillas and baboons in the way they have delevoped, europeans were far more ahead appearently. He also said that bears that tried to swim evolved to whales! Since the theory claims that all mamals came from one source it would mean that an elephant, a mouse and a bat would all have had to come from one source(you can easily see the connection between an elephant and a mouse, can´t you?) Now I ask you, do you really believe in this bogus theory, how can you deny Allah(may he be exalted) while he has created you, isn´t such an advanced creation bound to have a Creator with all knowledge?

36.77. Does not man see that We have created him from Nutfah[semen]. Yet behold he (stands forth) as an open opponent.

78. And he puts forth for Us a parable, and forgets his own creation. He says: "Who will give life to these bones after they are rotten and have become dust''

79. Say: "He will give life to them Who created them for the first time! And He is the All-Knower of every creation!''

How can you deny you Creator while he has provided provision for you and has created you, do you not see the heavens and the earth, that they are full of evidence to his existance?

Verily, in the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are indeed signs for men of understanding.[Quran 3.190]

Have you seen the termite, how it can build houses 300 times bigger than it self containing a ventilation system, canals, corridors, lava rooms, saftey exists, rooms for warm and cold weather and guess what, these small amazing animals are said to be BLIND! How can you claim that such a thing would come up by it self without a creator, the bat with its sonar system the fish with its navigation system were they could be dropped here in Sweden and find their way back to the place were they hatched somewhere in Canada.

The theory of evolution fails further because of findings of numerous fossils which show that some animals such as bees, turtles all have the exact same shape as their old fossils, all the vain attemps from evolutionists have been refuted and exposed such as Lucy which the claimed was an ape that could walk straight up while it was proved that it was nothing else but an ordinary ape with a bent stride. They have not found the broken link- a half ape halv man- and they will never find it. Give up this belief and believe in he who has sent to you messanger after messanger and is so merciful to you even though he doesen´t need you.

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe[Quran 21.30]

I could continue with harder evidence to denounce this but will stop here because of the lenght of the thread, Il end with a part of a Quran verse (Interpretation of the meaning):

And whosoever believes in Allah and performs righteous good deeds, He will admit him into Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. Allah has indeed granted for him an excellent provision.

[StonerBill]

fuck off you fucking idiot

evolution does not occur suddenly. evolution occurs over thousands of generations often. in addition, things did not happen 'by chance'. the environments that caused the cahnges in organisms happened by chance. your impressive numbers early on only show teh cahnce that a fully formed protein was created from chemicals randomly joining up. this is a perposterous assumption. protiens would not have jsut appeared. your stupid.

if you want to contribute more,
dont.

[cabdirazzaq]

Hmm, Im not suprised to such a reply, aggressive and without any explaination. If you flip a coin for millions, billions or even trillions years in a row you will never, believe me, Never get it to hit 1 milj times in a row. Secondly the theory of evolution controdicts the law of Therodynamics(its second law, the law of entropy which says:) that when something is left alone it will sooner or later get more unorganized such as If you leave a car in the desert for a couple of years you will expect to find it decayd, broken and in bad condition- the theory of evolution clearly stand against it.

[Maes]

Hi, Firstly I think your name should be Abd'ül Rezzak. Although I dont know Arabic, the true arabic name should be like that. Abdirezzak makes no sense.

Secondly; I appreciate your energy to change the world and people’s minds and the effort you put in the things you “believe”. But you should organize that effort by firstly making yourself a way of conduct that is freed from all aims but to truly understand how things work. Not WHY things work, or WHO makes them work. Ask the right question and always make sure if that question is still vaild and if so, under which conditions?.

As an evolutionist having graduated from Prehistory department, I shall challange the matters you’ve listed.

Evolutionist claim that the first protein came by "it self" and then somehow formed the cell and then formed the first living being which came to "evolve" into other species.

I avoid the word “creation” for it requires a creator which also requires a creator; not just a stupid statement as “he did not bear nor was he born”.

How did cells come to exist?
Cells arent bits of souls. Cells are bio-chemical components that use the energy found in the universe (talking for our system, especially emitted by the sun). What does use mean? They absorb the energy and convert and store it in chemicals. Thats how betteries work.
Cells are composed of hydrocarbon atoms, preteins. Proteins are made up of small structures called the amino-acids. They contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and in some states phosphorus and sulfur elements.Every single living cell’s protoplasma, contains these chemicals. Be it an ant, or a kangaroo or an Australian.
So this part, explains your “SOMEHOW FORMED A CELL” statement. Another bitter news for religious authorities: Now cells can be created in Labs with these chemical components.

Did this Darwin guy know how advanced the cell is with his primitive microscope?

He did not observe the inner structure of the cells with his microscope, he just coined a theory oberserving living organisms’ differences under different environments. These are modern data.

A normal sized protein contains 288 amino acids which can be combined into 12 different types. These can be arranged into a numer 10 followed with 300 zeros[ A probability of 1*10'300 zeros] In mathematic terms 1*10 followed by 50 zeros is counted as 0 possibilty.

It’s true that in maths, after 50 zeros, an event’s occurance chance is considered as a 0 possibility. In that sense, it is impossible to get a basketball through the basket. But during a normal NBA match, it occurs at an average of 150 times. How do you explain that? How come a ball passes through that small hole considering the eternity of space? The reason you can not explain is because you think self-determined.

Excuse my analogy but in this case, you are the basketball and the hand that aims you to the basket is the religious doctrine that you refer. Just like the basketball, you are determined to reach a point. But scienctific thinking tries to avoid that determinism.




I want to remind you that this is a rather modest protein molecule, some are giants consiting of thousands of amino acids. Now it faces another problem this protein must be left handen and not right handed sense the protein we find in living organisms are left handen, a 50% probability [1 times 10'150 zeros] Furthermore this protein must have the correct 3d structure called peptide bond, all this happend "by it self" as they claim. If we were to count all this together we would find a number of 1 times 10 followed by 950 zeros as a possibilty. Around the chance of you throwing a coin and getting tales 1miljon times in a row!

I dont understand what you mean by saying a “cells are either right handed or left handed”. It does not make sense.
But as for flipping the coins, refer to the basketball example above.

Have you seen the termite, how it can build houses 300 times bigger than it self containing a ventilation system, canals, corridors, lava rooms, saftey exists, rooms for warm and cold weather and guess what, these small amazing animals are said to be BLIND! How can you claim that such a thing would come up by it self without a creator, the bat with its sonar system the fish with its navigation system were they could be dropped here in Sweden and find their way back to the place were they hatched somewhere in Canada.


You cant propose gods' miracles to the way things work, just because you can not explain them, yet. Japanese thought god was the Sun, because they werent able to explain how it rose every morning and shone. Male seahorses bear the offspring, what about that? “Odd” things happen in nature and science is a reasonable reliable tool for explaining them.

The theory of evolution fails further because of findings of numerous fossils which show that some animals such as bees, turtles all have the exact same shape as their old fossils, all the vain attemps from evolutionists have been refuted and exposed such as Lucy which the claimed was an ape that could walk straight up while it was proved that it was nothing else but an ordinary ape with a bent stride. They have not found the broken link- a half ape halv man- and they will never find it. Give up this belief and believe in he who has sent to you messanger after messanger and is so merciful to you even though he doesen´t need you.

Lucy isn’t an ape, it is an Australopithecus afarensis. Unlike believers, scientists are not trying to attempt to refute anything, they are just trying to explain how things work. And talking about bones: it aint that easy to dig millions of cubic meters of soil and find some bones dating back to 3 million years!
It’s like digging a well with a needle, and looking for a small dot in the excavated soil... So be patient. Archaeology is a relatively new science field.
In archaeology it is surprising how shelter architecture, hand tools and burial gifts “evolve” as the cranial space increases (brain develops). Tools made by homo erectus are way less complicated than the tools made by the Neanderthalensis man, who was a great hunter, and was capable of chipping excellent arrow heads; later to be bettered by the homo sapiens.

If you flip a coin for millions, billions or even trillions years in a row you will never, believe me, Never get it to hit 1 milj times in a row.

Mathematically, if it can happen 2 times in a row then it can happen 1 million times in a row as well. But there should be zillions of attempts.

Secondly the theory of evolution controdicts the law of Therodynamics(its second law, the law of entropy which says that when something is left alone it will sooner or later get more unorganized

How come you make use of scientific theories? What you say has nothing to do with entropy. Entropy is something different. Secondly evolution does not contradict with thermodynamics, since we all die (or get unorganized as you put it)

[roly]

i dont care what darwin said ever....he denounced everything he ever said on his death bed and turned to God aparently....

roly.xxx

[Maes]

i dont care what darwin said ever....he denounced everything he ever said on his death bed and turned to God aparently....

roly.xxx
yeah, I bet you were there

[Soulless||Chaos]

If you flip a coin for millions, billions or even trillions years in a row you will never, believe me, Never get it to hit 1 milj times in a row
But if you flip it infinitely, eventualy it will.

[Diamond Gord]

i dont care what darwin said ever....he denounced everything he ever said on his death bed and turned to God aparently....

roly.xxxReligious people making things up, who'd of thought!

[Hikaru Zero]

Evolutionist claim that the first protein came by "it self" and then somehow formed the cell and then formed the first living being which came to "evolve" into other species. Did this Darwin guy know how advanced the cell is with his primitive microscope? ... and such writings.

A rudimentary knowledge of biochemistry solves this puzzle. Evolutionists DO claim that the first protein and first cells came by "themselves."

If you date back to primitive times when the Earth was still forming, there were odd and unusual compounds in the air and soil (and the air was certainly not breathable by humans at this point!). Due to this, there were also high levels of electricity that shattered through the atmosphere.

Scientists have been able to recreate this theoretical existance of what they believe Earth was like while it was forming. Gaining these ingredients, some researchers at a university in California (some details I cannot remember) put them into a test chamber and ran tests.

All of these tests failed to produce amino acids and any kind of cells.

However, when the scientists ran a spark of electricity through the chamber, certain ingredients bonded together. Another spark resulted in further combinations, until the original ingredients began to resemble today's amino acids.

Furthermore, a layer of cell wall also began to form.

With further testing ...

*SCIENTISTS WERE ABLE TO CREATE PROTOCELLS*

This is fact, you can search for it on google and get results.

These protocells had limited reproductive and response capabilities, but they DID reproduce and they DID contain proteins and enzymes.

You argue that there are so many proteins and so much detail to our cells that how could they have been formed? It started with things as small as protocells (or so evolutionists claim), and over millions (?) of years, different types of protocells evolved, until one became a full-fledged cell rivaling that of an amoeba. And from those cells came other protozoans and menozoans (I think that's the other word at least).

Furthermore, if scientists can run, say, 20 sparks through an atomosphere, and end up with several protocells, containing your little amino acids and enzymes, then think a little harder before you make up probabilities. There were much more than 20 sparks in this suggested atmosphere.

Again, I don't claim to know everything about the universe, but to me, your defense seems absurd, as you aren't refuting what evolutionists ACTUALLY claim. Instead, you are refuting what you THINK they claim. You are merely pointing out simple statistics, like this one:

If we were to count all this together we would find a number of 1 times 10 followed by 950 zeros as a possibilty. Around the chance of you throwing a coin and getting tales 1miljon times in a row!

Now think. If electricity abounded, and the chemicals were there, don't you think that if even only one shot of electricity wracked the environment every second, that so many chances could have been had in those millions of years while our Earth was forming? Let's see ...

One spark per second ...
60 sparks per minute ...
3600 sparks per hour ...
86400 sparks per day ...
31,536,000 sparks per year ...

That's over 31 million sparks per year.
Multiply that by a million years (when in reality there were several million) ...

31,546,000,000,000 ...

That is, 31 TRILLION sparks.

Now, assuming every other spark resulted in some form of combination ...

Compare even 1 trillion sparks to your odds of getting tails 1 million times in a row. 1 trillion divided by 1 million is 1 million.

Do you see where I am going? The chances for protocells and single-celled organisms to exist is QUITE substantial, and your "large numbered" figures are nothing but babble.

Now let's think here. You need to get tails 1 million times in a row. How many combinations can you possibly get, flipping a coin 1 million times in a row?

1 million squared (as you can only get either heads or tails)
1 million x 1 million.

Which equals 1 trillion.

Which is at least 15 times less than what scientists theorize evolution ACTUALLY had.

So, according to "your probabilities," then getting tails 1 million times in a row SHOULD have happened at least 15 times.

Perhaps you should go back to Calculus I?

Secondly these evolutionists claim that the evolution came about because of mutatians even though -ladies and gentleman- not a single mutatation has EVER been documented to have given a positive outcome(think about that)

Did you ever stop to think that because mutations happen on such a small scale, an inconsistancy in an organism as complex as humans would never result in a dramatically favourable change?

But, you are only talking -- "ladies and gentlemen" (laughs) -- about DOCUMENTED mutations. Mutations have only been documented for the past 100 years, if not less!

Back when the Earth was being formed, organisms were NOT as complex as we are today. Mutations were much larger-scale back then than they are now. And certainly, if trillions of protocells came about, do the odds suggest that even only ONE of them (let alone millions) could not have been a favourable change? What about combinations? Could multiple mutations have happened in sequence to produce a more complex organism? I argue that they easily could have been.

Now lets say that all this fiction stuff happend and everthing just came about by chance and the first sea animals were created. Now the theory(which is already broken) is faced with another problem, the transition from sea to land. This can be refuted with some biological statements(which Darwin didn´t think about while he was guessing)

1. We land creatures use 40% of our energy to just cary around our weight while sea animals doesn´t need that, that means the animals must change their whole skellet system in a matter of minutes(sense a fish cannot live on land for more than a few minutes)
2. The temperature changes quickly on land while it changes very slowly in water, this means that the fish has to adapt a new heat retention system.
3. Gills must be changed into advanced lungs in a matter of minutes(just by "chance")
4. Kidneys must be created sense fish doesn´t need them because they are surrounded by water which they can easily clean themselves with.
5. A new system for repelling water must also "mutate".
A person with a sound mind will see that this is all impossible, imbossible and Impossible. Furthermore they claim that these reptiles which have been formed by chance must somehow develop wings, they say that wings came about while dinosaurs were chasing flies!!!

Hey. How about, I give you a real life example of evolution from a water-based creature to a land-based creature.

The frog.

If it is "so impossible" for things to grow from a water-based creature to a land-based one, then how do you explain tadpoles turning into frogs in *ONE MEAGER LIFETIME*?

Now, if a frog, a complex, multi-million-celled organism, can do it in one lifetime,
Why don't we give single-celled organisms MILLIONS OF YEARS to do this, and see how they fare?

Furthermore, we know that single-celled organisms just don't exist on land even today. So, let's give them the chance to become more complex organisms with DNA structures before they end up coming out of the water ...

Face it. Evolution from water to land happens every day. EVERY DAY. Tadpoles cannot survive on land, but frogs sure can! And tadpoles are actually rather simple organisms when you study their biological bodies ...

I could care less what you have to say about probabilities. EVOLUTION FROM WATER TO LAND EXISTS TODAY, and there is NO WAY you could possibly refute the frog's life cycle!

The theory of evolution fails further because of findings of numerous fossils which show that some animals such as bees, turtles all have the exact same shape as their old fossils, all the vain attemps from evolutionists have been refuted and exposed such as Lucy which the claimed was an ape that could walk straight up while it was proved that it was nothing else but an ordinary ape with a bent stride. They have not found the broken link- a half ape halv man- and they will never find it. Give up this belief and believe in he who has sent to you messanger after messanger and is so merciful to you even though he doesen´t need you.

Specifically,

They have not found the broken link- a half ape halv man- and they will never find it.

I must sincerely apologize in advance for what I am about to call you.

You are an ignorant, dogmatic moron.

Ever watch the Discovery Channel? WE *HAVE* FOUND IT. It's called a neanderthal, and it has a pseudo-bent stride that resembles that of a cross between both a human and an ape. Their skull's shape looks to be a cross between both a human and an ape, and the DNA structures are nearly a perfect compromise between humans and apes. In fact, we also have evidence that suggests that neanderthals existed at about the same time as the most primitive humans existed, and that neanderthals eventually became extinct because of brutally cold weather, while humans managed to adapt and survive.

Secondly the theory of evolution controdicts the law of Therodynamics(its second law, the law of entropy which says that when something is left alone it will sooner or later get more unorganized such as If you leave a car in the desert for a couple of years you will expect to find it decayd, broken and in bad condition- the theory of evolution clearly stand against it.

Have you ever heard of gravity?

Gravity opposes entropy.

In fact, how can you explain why NO molecules from this Earth leave the atomosphere (save when our astronauts pee into space), even though TECHNICALLY beause of entropy they should?

One word: Gravity.

You can entropy this and entropy that, and you can leave your friends behind becuase they don't entropy and if they don't entropy then they aren't your friends,

But you will never be able to, with the laws of entropy, explain why our planet does NOT expand into googles of molecules that fly away into space in a chaotic fashion using the second law of thermodynamics. The evidence is right beneath your feet.

Gravity.

[Hikaru Zero]

Oh, and I just wanted to point out.

I am a theist.

I believe in a deity.

Just as Darwin did.

And no, I am not kidding, I am being 100% serious.

I believe in a deity called Gaia, and I am a type of panentheist.

(panENtheist, not pantheist. note the extra "en")

Is is so suprising that a person who can believe in a God can also believe in evolution?

[roly]

yeah, I bet you were there

a'ight calm down....just whats written in books and recordings ...sry for making an input on a free speech site :eek:

[roly]

Religious people making things up, who'd of thought!

calm doen...they were scientists who didnt believe either......
i'll try and find proof, i read it in many places a while back..see if i can dig it up!!
roly.xxx

[cabdirazzaq]

How did cells come to exist?
Cells arent bits of souls. Cells are bio-chemical components that use the energy found in the universe (talking for our system, especially emitted by the sun). What does use mean? They absorb the energy and convert and store it in chemicals. Thats how betteries work.
Cells are composed of hydrocarbon atoms, preteins. Proteins are made up of small structures called the amino-acids. They contain carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and in some states phosphorus and sulfur elements.Every single living cell’s protoplasma, contains these chemicals. Be it an ant, or a kangaroo or an Australian.
So this part, explains your “SOMEHOW FORMED A CELL” statement. Another bitter news for religious authorities: Now cells can be created in Labs with these chemical components.What you have written here is nothing that explains how the cell came into being, on the contrary what you did was explaining what a cell is composed of which is not needed to be repeated, a small question, how do you expect to find a cell to come into being only using elements such as heat and electricity plus a few things like carbon dioxid and nitrogen? A famous experiment was done by a researcher called Stanley Miller in the 50´s where he used ammonia, methan, hydrogen, and water vapour and he later put this things in a jar, he boiled it all together and further added electricity which was suppose to be the atmosphere which the earth consisted of for a long time ago. What happen was that a few inorganic amino acids were found in the bottom of the jar and evolutionist all over the world called it a succes and praised it, but there were a few "mistakes" in this experiment. Miller used a thing called a cold trap which isolated these amino acids as soon as they were formed(otherwise the "lightning" would have destroyed it) he further used a fake enviroment, what he should of used was nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Furthermore if anthing formed by it self as you put it, wouldn´t it then be destroyed by all the oxygen which the scientists claim existed in that time, if there were no oxygen then there would be no ozon layer which means that these amino acids would have no element protecting it from radation thus being destroyed, how do you get simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the necessary chemical changes that will convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins? Miller himself throws up his hands at that part of the puzzle. "It's a problem," he sighs with exasperation. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."

Life creates life!

He is the Living (One): There is no god but He: Call upon Him, giving Him sincere devotion. Praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds!

The famous English astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle says:
If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells) have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.



He did not observe the inner structure of the cells with his microscope, he just coined a theory oberserving living organisms’ differences under different environments. These are modern data.[/qoute]
He appearently had a lot of problem differing from what is a varations of species such as dogs and evolution, there is a big difference.

[quote]
It’s true that in maths, after 50 zeros, an event’s occurance chance is considered as a 0 possibility. In that sense, it is impossible to get a basketball through the basket. But during a normal NBA match, it occurs at an average of 150 times. How do you explain that? How come a ball passes through that small hole considering the eternity of space? The reason you can not explain is because you think self-determined. This examply of yours would be acceptable if you would remove any basketball players from the court and only wait trillions of years and see if the ball hop in the basket by it self, no becase it needs the players which direct the shot and make it go in the basket, therefor YOU need a creator to create the cell just as you need players to get the ball in the basket.

This reminds me of the saying of a famous evolutionist which you probably know of called Richard Dawkins who told christians not to be amazed if the statue of mary would wave at them. According to Dawkins, "Perhaps all the atoms of the statue's arm just happened to move in the same direction at once-a low probability event to be sure, but possible."


You cant propose gods' miracles to the way things work, just because you can not explain them, yet. Japanese thought god was the Sun, because they werent able to explain how it rose every morning and shone. Male seahorses bear the offspring, what about that? “Odd” things happen in nature and science is a reasonable reliable tool for explaining them.I most shourly can, because it gives you a picture of all the things CREATED by Allah(may he be exalted) which any logical sane person wouldn´t reject except from the ones that cover up and deny because they want something to stand on, but the truth is that they have nothing to stand on.

That is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. Thus does Allah set forth for mankind their parables. [sura Muhammad 47.3]


Lucy isn’t an ape, it is an Australopithecus afarensis. Unlike believers, scientists are not trying to attempt to refute anything, they are just trying to explain how things work. And talking about bones: it aint that easy to dig millions of cubic meters of soil and find some bones dating back to 3 million years!
It’s like digging a well with a needle, and looking for a small dot in the excavated soil... So be patient. Archaeology is a relatively new science field.
In archaeology it is surprising how shelter architecture, hand tools and burial gifts “evolve” as the cranial space increases (brain develops). Tools made by homo erectus are way less complicated than the tools made by the Neanderthalensis man, who was a great hunter, and was capable of chipping excellent arrow heads; later to be bettered by the homo sapiens.
The fake family tree which scientist often reffer to is nothing but alot of lies, one on top of another. 1.Australopithecines 2. Homo habilis 3. Homo erectus 4. Homo sapiens.

http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_evolution/ausralo.jpghttp://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_evolution/sempanze.jpg
The first picture is a scull from a Australopithecines while the other is a modern schimp( pic taken from "Evolution deciet"), biologists claim that there has existed thousands of ape races, most of which is extint today, this looks like an normal ape to me.


Mathematically, if it can happen 2 times in a row then it can happen 1 million times in a row as well. But there should be zillions of attempts. Let it be zillions and zillions attemps it will never function because it doesn´t have the required substances to start with and further more such a possibility is just as likley as zero. Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:
The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence


Further more, no mutation has been recorded giving good effects, call me the day a monkey starts walking, discussing and involving in society issues or when a fish decides to have lungs and a new skellet system and when a lizard decides to have wings. If something "evolves" such as if a creature gets a new eye or something than before this happens it must have known how this new eye for instance would function along with the rest of the body, take our private parts for instance. If they were to be created from mutations than it must know how to function along with the rest of the body sense its all connected together, such as if it would see/hear/feel something stimulating how would it react, this knowledge must exist before it can "evolve" and it therefor requires a Creator, and that is Allah(may he be exalted)

That is Allah, your Lord, the Creator of all things, La ilaha ila Huwa. How then are you turning away[Ghafir 40.62]

[Hikaru Zero]

Further more, no mutation has been recorded giving good effects

I notice that you made no replies to my posts and apparently did not even read my post.

Up to the chellange?

[Granolahead]

hey there was a cool book i read about the gaia theory which was pretty interesting. It was about how instead of life evolving to its environment, it changes the environment to suit its evolution. Look up the Gaia theory and a model used called Daisyworld to explane it better. It has some points that make sense but like all science cant explane all. The title of the thread made me write this cause it said "Darwin Lied". Even though the Gaia theory doesnt say Darwin lied it does suggest that his Evolution theory wasnt 100% correct.

"Whatever way it happened im glad evolution gave me 5 fingers......that gives me a middle one." [Billy Bob 31.64]

[atropine]

Evolutionist claim that the first protein came by "it self" and then somehow formed the cell and then formed the first living being which came to "evolve" into other species.
as opposed to a god appearing from nowhere and creating everything out of nothing?


Further more, no mutation has been recorded giving good effects, call me the day a monkey starts walking, discussing and involving in society issues or when a fish decides to have lungs and a new skellet system and when a lizard decides to have wings.
well it has been documented, a prehistoric creature slowly changing from reptile to bird. ever heard of a lungfish? they evolved to have stronger bones in their fins in which they could actually stand and walk on for when their lakes dried up. the strong ones survived and the weaker ones died out and now i believe theyve gotten to the point of these fins acting and very functional legs. and most scientists (who believe in evolution anyway) will say that monkeys evolved to men, thus a monkey had started walking, discussing and involving society issues... so really, all 3 of youre examples have actually happened.

[cabdirazzaq]

Acually I only had time to answer one post and I had to go to school. I will try inshallah(Allah willing) to tr to answer you now, keep in mind that I don´t have much time I have both quran school and some school work waiting for me.

and such writings.

Furthermore, if scientists can run, say, 20 sparks through an atomosphere, and end up with several protocells, containing your little amino acids and enzymes, then think a little harder before you make up probabilities. There were much more than 20 sparks in this suggested atmosphere.

What these scientists used was water, methanol or wood alcohol, ammonia, and carbon monoxide, the question is did all these things exist at that time? If I were to be asked that question I would answer Allah knows best but most scientiests would not accept that for instance ammonia existed at that time, isn´t that cheating- using a fake enviroment just as Miller did? Secondly as I said before, the oxygen would of destroyed it anyway so whats the point, with struggling to prove your view correct?
You are trying to convince me that these protocells would after millions of years build the more complex structure we see today, that is like saying that small pieces of sand came together by elements causing them to do that(using for instance wind) , the sand pieces further got on top each other and builded big skyscapers after a couple of million years- this is what you are saying and it sounds completly wrong how ever you try to put it, it doesn´t matter if you wait 2 seconds or trillions of years - you will not get to see a big house being created by sand without anyone directing it.

Now, assuming every other spark resulted in some form of combination ...
Assuming not knowing. There is a big difference, these numbers which you invent are totally fake and I hope you understand that, you are only guessing that appearently everytime it sparks it results in a new combination even though it may mean the same combination for millions and millions of tries. And lets not forget the DNA molecyle which can contain tons of data in thousands and thousands of different combinations, interesting to say that even DNA and RNA came by it self.
Dr. Leslie Orgel says:
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.

This means that DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins(John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264)

Did you ever stop to think that because mutations happen on such a small scale, an inconsistancy in an organism as complex as humans would never result in a dramatically favourable change?

But, you are only talking -- "ladies and gentlemen" (laughs) -- about DOCUMENTED mutations. Mutations have only been documented for the past 100 years, if not less!

Back when the Earth was being formed, organisms were NOT as complex as we are today. Mutations were much larger-scale back then than they are now. And certainly, if trillions of protocells came about, do the odds suggest that even only ONE of them (let alone millions) could not have been a favourable change? What about combinations? Could multiple mutations have happened in sequence to produce a more complex organism? I argue that they easily could have been.
Could you please tell us a little about this so called positive mutations? You know I have this little thing which I admire, I like to see birds fly around and I would love to be able to fly my self but if I would try and try and really focus all my energy in jumping all the time trying to form wings or jumping out of the balcony[ouch], and I do this all the time and all mankind would do this all time, never would I/we be able to form them even though we have tried millions of times. Why would monkeys want to become human anyway, we are much more weaker than alot of them, we do not posses the skill to swing around trees like they do nor do we run as fast as they can do without becoming very tired a great deal. So why become a human, I mean it is not like they want to create computers or something of the kind?

Hey. How about, I give you a real life example of evolution from a water-based creature to a land-based creature.

The frog.
You are 100% correct when you say that frogs which are brought up in water later starts living in land, ou are forgetting one vital thing though. The frog is created with this ability, it is not like it happens by way of mutation every time a frog grows up, rather this is how the animal function. The creatures wich we are taking about which you claim lived under the sea is an animal that usually does not walk on land but it once just "happend" to do so - just like a normal fish(meaning it had to change blood/skellet system and form lungs and kidneys by way of mutation).


I must sincerely apologize in advance for what I am about to call you. You are an ignorant, dogmatic moron.
I want to quote a few words from Abu Hanifa(may Allah have mercy on him) a famous muslim scholar when he was asked about Allahs(may he be exalted) existance:

The same question was asked, by an atheist, of Imam Abu Hanifa and he replied, "Forget it! At the moment, I am busy thinking about this ship. People tell me there is a big ship, it contains different goods on board. There is no one to steer it, no one maintaining it. Yet, this ship keeps going back and forth; it even traverses big waves on the oceans; it stops at the locations that it is supposed to stop at; it continues in the direction that it is supposed to head. This ship has no
captain and no one planning its trips."

The atheist who posed the question interrupted and exclaimed, "What kind of strange and silly thought is this? How can any intelligent person think that some thing like this can occur?"

Imam Abu Hanifa said, "I feel sorry about your state! You cannot imagine one ship running without some one looking after its affairs. Yet you think that for this whole world, which runs exactly and precisely, there is no one who looks after it, and no one owns it."


Neanderthals looks like a human anyway, some like the one founded in Jerusalem was supposed to have been 1.8meters and Allah know best. Who cares if you find a cranium of a man or a race that resembles a monkey in some structures, people who have a skull looking a little like those of monkeys are living yet to this date, are they also Neanderthals and stupid half apes?

Allah has created every moving creature from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, and some that walk on two legs, and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Verily, Allah is able to do all things [Noor 24.45]

[Hikaru Zero]

What these scientists used was water, methanol or wood alcohol, ammonia, and carbon monoxide, the question is did all these things exist at that time? If I were to be asked that question I would answer Allah knows best but most scientiests would not accept that for instance ammonia existed at that time, isn´t that cheating- using a fake enviroment just as Miller did? Secondly as I said before, the oxygen would of destroyed it anyway so whats the point, with struggling to prove your view correct?

*Ahem* Well, aren't you the one now telling us what was and what wasn't in the environment? As you know, scientists can only theorize, and we do so because we hope to understand our past and the past of where we live. Now, you claim here that the oxygen would have destroyed the cells and protocells, when most scientists agree that life started in the sea, which was filled with water. For the very small concentration of oxygen that exists in water (and much less at the deeper levels of the sea) compared with the oxygen content of the air at this time, I don't see how oxygen would destroy protocell matter? If oxygen, even at higher concentrations, is capable of destroying protocells and cells, why am I not degrading at an alarming rate right now?

And regardless of if it was a fake environment or not, the fake environment contained what scientists thought existed at that point, and they did NOT know that the amino acids, proteins, and protocells would form. They just stuck it all together and hoped something would work. And *it did.*

Besides, if it was a fake environment designed to emulate the environment at that time, wouldn't it already contain the oxygen that scientists believe exists? Otherwise, it wouldn't BE a fake environment designed to emulate the world back then, and the experiment would be null and void (but it's not). The experiment should emulate the environment; scientists would refute the experiment rather than praise it, if it didn't contain the right levels of elements.

You are trying to convince me that these protocells would after millions of years build the more complex structure we see today, that is like saying that small pieces of sand came together by elements causing them to do that(using for instance wind) , the sand pieces further got on top each other and builded big skyscapers after a couple of million years- this is what you are saying and it sounds completly wrong how ever you try to put it, it doesn´t matter if you wait 2 seconds or trillions of years - you will not get to see a big house being created by sand without anyone directing it.

Ever heard of a mountain? Thanks for proving my point.

Mountains are created by the same process, small pieces of sand come together by the elements causing them to do that (using, for instance, WIND). What is so hard to understand about that?

And mountains ALSO have caves in them; I would consider a cave to be a primitive form of residence (as you suggest a house or a large skyscraper). But, we are not talking about houses and skyscrapers appearing out of nowhere, we know that things like that didn't happen. Instead, caves and small knolls formed, and animals lived in them.

Assuming not knowing. There is a big difference, these numbers which you invent are totally fake and I hope you understand that, you are only guessing that appearently everytime it sparks it results in a new combination even though it may mean the same combination for millions and millions of tries. And lets not forget the DNA molecyle which can contain tons of data in thousands and thousands of different combinations, interesting to say that even DNA and RNA came by it self.

You believe in Allah, right? Are you not assuming and not knowing there? Now, you can't prove he exists, as people of every religion have been trying to do that forever, and have always failed. Thus, you must be assuming that Allah exists, and that the Koran is correct; you can't "know" it is true just because you believe in it. If it can be known (as fact), then it has to have been proven to you, which means it is inherently provable, and can be proven to other people (who aren't dogmatists and immediately disregard the proof).

And how can you say my numbers are fake? I did the math *right in front of you*. People win the lottery all the time, and they only have their own lifetimes to win it. If you played a 7-digit lottery (chances of winning about 1 in 1 million, just like your coin flip) every day over the course of a TRILLION years, your chances of winning at least once are unbelievably high.

And scientists DO guess that the sparks happened once every second. But come to think of it, sparks happened a LOT more than that. Every day over the world TODAY, powerful strikes of lightning happen every second or so. And scientists theorize because of the elements back in the time period we are referring to, that there was a lot more conductivity and a whole lot more lightning.

And the DNA molecule? Protocells don't contain DNA or RNA. So where are you coming from? Certainly, an extremely simple DNA strand (containing, say, just 8 or 12 molecules or something) could have been introduced inside of a protocell by chance, and the protocell could have reacted to incorporate that into the protocell, and that DNA strand could have also been replicated and passed on to another protocell offspring (as the rest of the cell tends to do as well), and in the future, more molecules could be tacked onto the end of that DNA strand, and so on and so forth.

And as interesting as it is to say that DNA and RNA came "by itself," it's even more interesting to say that a God and this universe also came "by themselves."

Dr. Leslie Orgel says:
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.

I'm sorry, did I not just point out that the experiment above PROVED that proteins and nucleic acids, even if in smaller and more simple forms, DID arise spontaneously in the same place at the same time? You missed the point.

And if it IS extremely improbable, that improbability existed over the duration of MILLIONS, if not BILLIONS of years. And if it's so improbable, then how were scientists able to recreate that improbability and still create protocells to begin with, and in a short amount of time?

This means that DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins(John Horgan, "In the Beginning", Scientific American, vol. 264)

*ahem* NOW you are just stating falsehoods. "proteins cannot form without DNA." This statement is just absurd. Proteins have NOTHING to do with DNA existing. Proteins BUILD DNA. You forgot this important aspect. It is scientific fact that proteins are involved in the building, modifying, and replicating process of DNA. And proteins and amino acids DID exist at this time, even if in very simple versions. They could easily have created DNA from within the protocell itself.


Could you please tell us a little about this so called positive mutations? You know I have this little thing which I admire, I like to see birds fly around and I would love to be able to fly my self but if I would try and try and really focus all my energy in jumping all the time trying to form wings or jumping out of the balcony[ouch], and I do this all the time and all mankind would do this all time, never would I/we be able to form them even though we have tried millions of times. Why would monkeys want to become human anyway, we are much more weaker than alot of them, we do not posses the skill to swing around trees like they do nor do we run as fast as they can do without becoming very tired a great deal. So why become a human, I mean it is not like they want to create computers or something of the kind?

You are missing the point of "mutation" altogether. Who said monkies WANTED to become humans, mutations happen regardless of what is wanted.

If you jump out of a window and try to form wings, that's what you want, not necessarily what is going to happen. You're a huge, complex organism. The chance for such a large mutation to happen is 0, becuase the mutation would have to include so many molecules, placed perfectly, moving into your body.

However, back when protocells existed, large mutations did NOT require such vast amount of molecules; instead, they only required a small number of them, as protocells are virtually infinitely smaller than human beings. It requires a much smaller amount of material placed in the right position.

Futhermore, wings are a LARGE mutation. We are talking about gradual SMALL mutations; the kind that might change ONE molecule in a DNA structure. The chance of wings forming? Null. The chance of a single molecule changing because of a small freak accident? Very high.

You are 100% correct when you say that frogs which are brought up in water later starts living in land, ou are forgetting one vital thing though. The frog is created with this ability, it is not like it happens by way of mutation every time a frog grows up, rather this is how the animal function. The creatures wich we are taking about which you claim lived under the sea is an animal that usually does not walk on land but it once just "happend" to do so - just like a normal fish(meaning it had to change blood/skellet system and form lungs and kidneys by way of mutation).

And this is my point entirely (although I gave a bad example). Frogs have the genetics to mutate. Within their genetics contain all of the information that involves changing from a sea-based organism to a land-based organism. If frogs have those genetics, why couldn't smaller organisms with only a few cells not have those kinds of genetics?

And most scientists believe that fish evolved to be much closer to what they are today before organisms made the change to land-based organisms. And perhaps you have never heard of the lungfish? It's a fish that has primitive constructions of legs. The progressive chain is there, for the fish to have primitive legs. Suppose that other fish had these legs in the past, and the legs developed until they could walk on land. And say, they couldn't breathe when on land, so they went back into the water, and periodically wandered back onto the land every now and again. And say they begain to develop lungs due the their exposure to the oxygen, or rather, say their gills began to change INTO lungs (which wouldn't be that hard).

I want to quote a few words from Abu Hanifa(may Allah have mercy on him) a famous muslim scholar when he was asked about Allahs(may he be exalted) existance:

The same question was asked, by an atheist, of Imam Abu Hanifa and he replied, "Forget it! At the moment, I am busy thinking about this ship. People tell me there is a big ship, it contains different goods on board. There is no one to steer it, no one maintaining it. Yet, this ship keeps going back and forth; it even traverses big waves on the oceans; it stops at the locations that it is supposed to stop at; it continues in the direction that it is supposed to head. This ship has no
captain and no one planning its trips."

The atheist who posed the question interrupted and exclaimed, "What kind of strange and silly thought is this? How can any intelligent person think that some thing like this can occur?"

Imam Abu Hanifa said, "I feel sorry about your state! You cannot imagine one ship running without some one looking after its affairs. Yet you think that for this whole world, which runs exactly and precisely, there is no one who looks after it, and no one owns it."

Thanks for proving my point!

First off, I believe that it is possible (albeit unlikely) that a ship such as that could indeed do that. It's quite unlikely, but with currents and weather conditions, still possible.

I also believe that it is possible (albeit unlikely) that a universe such as this (as big and vast as it is), could indeed give life to some kind of organism. It's quite unlikely, but with elements and physics, still possible.

I won't refute that life, as scientists believe it happened through evolution, is very unlikely to occur. But the simple fact is, life DID occur, and we are merely trying to explain WHY it occurred.

Some people believe we were just created by some kind of higher deity, such as Allah.

Others are trying their hardest to figure out whether we are just an off-chance probability or not.

And can you blame them for doing so to begin with?

Neanderthals looks like a human anyway, some like the one founded in Jerusalem was supposed to have been 1.8meters and Allah know best. Who cares if you find a cranium of a man or a race that resembles a monkey in some structures, people who have a skull looking a little like those of monkeys are living yet to this date, are they also Neanderthals and stupid half apes?

Yes, people who have skulls LOOKING a LITTLE bit like those of monkies still live. But neanderthals' skulls bear an uncanny number of similarities between both apes' AND humans' skulls. Certainly some neanderthals had skulls that resembled ape's skulls more than they resembled humans, and vice versa. And that's what we call the process of evolution.

Just because a neanderthal has a skull that slightly resembles a human's doesn't mean it is a human. Likewise, just because a human has a skull that slightly resembles a neanderthal's skull doesn't mean that person is a neanderthal.

[Diamond Gord]

cabdirazzaq,
Darwin formulated a theory. This theory was formulated through study, thought and lots of hard work.
Maybe you disagree with this theory but to call him a liar when quite clearly he believed that his theory was viable says more about you than it does about him.
Disagree but don't disrespect or question the mans integrity because you disagree.

[Sera Michele]

Absolutely. These are just theories. That's like me calling you a liar for theorizing that Allah created all things (for which there is less evidence than darwins theory) when you honestly believe yourself to be conveying the truth.

Beyond that, it isn't called "The FACT of Evolution" it is considered a theory. It will probably never be a fact considering no humans were around at the time to observe the phenomena. Same for creationist theory.

You are absolutely intitled to believe whatever you choose. As is anyone. I, personally, find it more acceptable to believe a scientific theory over a religious one. You would have a hard time convincing me otherwise.

Who is to say that Allah didn't create the capability for life, all the ingredients, and let existance form from there? Just another theory, however.

[seamonster66]

I don't want to read all of this bullshit, but explain to me WHY anyone would think humans AREN"T realted to apes, its so obvious that you would have to be a complete moron not to see it.

[Shane99X]

I don't want to read all of this bullshit, but explain to me WHY anyone would think humans AREN"T realted to apes, its so obvious that you would have to be a complete moron not to see it.
I think you answered your own question.

[seamonster66]

ahhh touche

have you ever looked at a chimps hands and fingernails?

they are SO close to humans, even the rising moon pattern under the fingernail is nearly identical. they are smart animals, I feel honored to be their cousin.

I think the fact that we look alike and share 99% of the same DNA makes for a more rational arguement than adam pulling out a rib and drawing a woman.

[Maes]

I'm sorry that I'll no longer answer by quoting cuz I'm too lazy to write. If I wrote as much as I did on these forums, at school, I would have graduated earlier.

But the principle mistake between a dogmatic thesis and a "scientific" thesis is that scientific thesis asks questions and analyzes things and tries to answer. When it can not answer certain questions, it is always easy to blame it (abuse it).

Whereas the dogmatic thesis has all the answers. It is not possible for a religious person not be able to explain things. Our religion teacher, when asked why certain things worked liked the way they are but not like some other way, used to say "Because God wants them to be this way".

This used to be the best answer you'd get. Therefore it's futile to discuss. Discussion belongs to the questioning part, the part that does not have the answers.

And about the part that always has the answers (dogmatic)... I fear to be on that side, because I fear to be certain about being right all the time.

[Hikaru Zero]

(Thanks to Razorofoccam for the inspiration)

I have no respect for a dogmatist, as I believe firmly in the use of Ockham's Razor.

Back in medieval times, a man by the name of William of Ockham created a tool of the mind called "Ockham's Razor." This tool states "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily," in more or less words.

Here is an example of its use:

A) The Earth revolves around the sun due to a powerful force which makes it do so.
B) The Earth revolves around the sun due to a powerful force created by aliens which makes it do so.

If you'll notice, both statements are valid theories. And neither can be proven wrong. However ... the second statement says that aliens created this force.

Using Ockham's Razor, we can make our statements more truthful and less open to disproof by not adding entities to our theories; entities that we have no way to prove exist, such as aliens. By removing the aliens part, our statement explains why the Earth revolves around the sun, but does not dictate all of the details (which might be unknown to us) about that action.

I could tell you that the Earth gets its ice cream from invisible ice cream factories on Mars, but since I have no evidence to suggest that, nor any proof, it is more rational to say "The Earth gets its ice cream from somewhere I don't know."

Likewise, to say that God or Allah or what-have-you created the universe without any true evidence (other than what people have told you ... which is no evidence because they could be wrong, lying, or misinformed) is equally irrational without evidence.

Then, you may ask, why am I a theist? Does that not make me irrational?

It's quite simple.

If I said Allah created the world and does as he wishes, and when somebody asked me why I believe in Allah, and I said "Because Allah wishes me to," or some such thing, I would be using the existance of Allah to justify the existance of Allah; this is circular in belief and completely irrational.

However, if I said, "Because I have felt what I believe to be Allah," or "Because I want something to believe in," or "Because I believe that the Koran was written by Allah," (no offense; I do not know if the Koran supposedly was or wasn't written by Allah, please don't hold me to that), then I would be using some kind of evidence that I have to justify Allah's existance.

And would YOU say that YOU have felt Allah, I would equally respect that and could find no way to prove it wrong, because it is YOUR experience that you believe in, and that can't be proven wrong, at least not to you.

Similarly, I believe in Gaia. I do believe that I have felt Gaia, that she has touched me, and that she gives direction and existance to reality, and to us. But I believe this only because I have experienced her presence, and nobody could disprove that I had this experience (unless it were scientifically proven, but we as the human race do not have the technology to do that yet).

Since evolutionism has no deity, there is nothing to be "felt" from a deity, and this type of evidence cannot exist for all evolutionists. Because of that, all evolutionists MUST have some type of evidence supporting their theories, other than just "Because I think it happened that way." And sometimes, evolutionists make mistakes or don't know answers, but should they be held against that? All people make mistakes, and nobody knows everything; to err is human.

You coming in here and trying to prove evolutionism wrong is perfectly acceptable. However, evolutionism DOES offer evidence.

By the philosophical definition of a rational person, all rational people, to continue to be rational, MUST consider ALL evidence they have for or against a belief. Therefore, for a rational person not to be an evolutionist (as evolutionism offers, at the very least, some evidence), that person would have to have personal evidence that is stronger (at least to them) than evolutionism evidence.

And I, for one, (and hopefully you as well), DO have this evidence, in that I have experienced Gaia firsthand. =) Otherwise, you would just be another ignorant dogmatist, and nobody should be cursed to be that.

Regardless, any "evidence" that is against evolutionism is not evidence, it's just somebody trying to justify their beliefs in some kind of deity, because they feel that evolutionists are a threat, by trying to disprove evidence that is shaky at best, and is only a calculated guess to begin with.

[cabdirazzaq]

Why shouldn´t I call his theory a lie. He founded all his evidence on a guess here and one here, what is the difference between a man guessing without knowledge and one who is lying? The man thinks australian aborgines and african negroes are no more smarter than apes and baboons, you can clearly notice his intelligence can´t you. Believing in a creator does not envolve any kind of assuming, there is no doubt about it, you people are truly like the blind. You have the truth in front of you and eagerly turn away from it. Now I´m guessing that you will remind me that I never seen, heard, felt or smelled my Lord(may he be exalted) yet I believe in him, why? Do you not see the signs of his creation all over the world in all millions and millions of species?
Let me ask you a question, are you going to die some day? [*thinking what kind of a stupid question is that] Yes ofcourse you acknowledge that fact, how do you know that you are going to die, have you seen, tasted, smelled, heared or felt death? No, but you see other people dying and you know using your own sense of logic(not being told this and that by scientists) that everone dies. By Allah, how can you then not accept that all these wonderfull creatures from small to large with such advanced functions variating from a bat which can in a completly dark room notice a worm smaller than my little finger under a big rock which is under a pile of cloths were created and signs for us to see? A wale which can communciate from miles away and birds which can navigate their way back where ever you put them? Science means considering options, then why are you refusing to even consider the fact of a Creator(may he be exalted) even though that is alot stronger to go on rather than this and that happend by it self and than this happend by it self.

You clearly say no to the idea that I could have wings but how did the first birds appear according to the evolution theory? Appearently some creatures which were land animals started chasing flies and then adapted wings like this stupid picture(from Harun Yahya)
http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_evolution/sinekkoken.jpg

Now why cant I do that?

What exacly do you not understand from the quote I pasted, that protein can´t exist without DNA and vice versa? Protein are said to build up DNA, yes but it is DNA that tells it what kind of protein to build as scientists claim. So how can a protein build up DNA without the instructions which DNA provide?

Who said monkies WANTED to become humans, mutations happen regardless of what is wantedI´ve heard from evolutionists that giraffs came from horses or some other animal which wanted to reach leafs up in the tree and fishes "evolved" to land animals because they needed food, well I could need some wings so as to fly to school, it would save me alot of time.

Are you comparing a pile of sand to an advance building consisting of hundrends of rooms, air conditioning, and all these modern things which are used nowadays? Who said these huge rock mountains were created by sand which got ontop each other, mountains are like pegs holding the earth stable from earthquakes as stated by those who work with geology and which was stated by the lord of the worlds (Interpreation of the meaning):

Have We not made the earth as a wide expanse
And the mountains as pegs?[Quran 78:6-7]

30. Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe

31. And We have placed on the earth firm mountains, lest it should shake with them, and We placed therein broad highways for them to pass through, that they may be guided. [Quran 21.30-31]

And say they begain to develop lungs due the their exposure to the oxygen, or rather, say their gills began to change INTO lungs (which wouldn't be that hard)So if I would follow your theory, I could swim and dive ever now and then I would after a while have develop gills? Your argument is a defensive one without evidence, what you say is that this happend along time ago and it will happen after a long time has passed but right now nothing is happening. You are not living but in a delusion, far away from the truth. Indeed the true certainty(death) will show the truth and then it is to late. If you but understod that you were born yesterday and will die tomorrow and will be questioned about what you did..


39. As for those who disbelieved, their deeds are like a mirage in a Qi`ah. The thirsty one thinks it to be water until he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing; but he finds Allah with him, Who will pay him his due. And Allah is swift in taking account.

40. Or like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with waves topped by waves, topped by dark clouds, (layers of) darkness upon darkness: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light.

O my lord, make me adherent to the truth, make make my heart and my feet steady and save me from ever inclining to a people who do not know.

[strawpuppy]

Time and space and photon's seem to be having a hard time of it these days.....Einstien said the magic word "relativity"....it's just all so relative to how each of us percieves it....
I still cannot be budged off my theory that consciousness existed within timlessness and nothingness and that conciousness was the catalyst of everything.....
I call that consciousness god, and it could be defined as a creator, except I think we are all\everything a part of that consciousness, therefore we must be creating ourselves, which corresponds to Darwin....

[Granolahead]

Why shouldn´t I call his theory a lie. He founded all his evidence on a guess here and one here, what is the difference between a man guessing without knowledge and one who is lying?You can't lie in a theory. That what a theory is, an educated guess. It's not proven nor disproven but rather the first step in figureing out the facts.

For I shall smite thee. Now go'eth forth and spread word that you have been smitten. For smiteing is thy path to righteousness and an end to all thats been smite. [Charly 23:14]

[atropine]

Now why cant I do that?

well I could need some wings so as to fly to school, it would save me alot of time.

I could swim and dive ever now and then I would after a while have develop gills? .
evolution doesnt occur overnight you dumb fuck, noone has ever stated that. the documented reptile to bird mutation has been dated at millions and millions of years. god get over yourself

[Razorofoccam]

cabdirazzaq

This is all and well..
But occam asks one question....

How do you know how god creates?

From stories in your book?
From experience?

Occam has i simple theory that solves all this stuff..

Evolution..Is gods way of creating....

This resolves all the issues does it not?
God will hardly be limmited to our time frames...It can change things here and there and move through time to perfect a creation just as we would walk around the garden trimming plants...

Occam

[gnrm23]

oh no...
darwinism, eeeek...

OK, charles darwin was influenced by the british/euro/caucasian worldview which he perforce took in with his mother's milk, so to speak...
and his "theory of evolution by means of natural selection" has been misunderstood & misused by nazis & klansmen & "social darwinists" & other racist kooks...
and darwin (and his fellow scientists/natural philosophers) were unaware of the pioneeering work of monk gregor mendel, which would soon allow the discipline of genetics to flourish....
nevertheless, his "theory" is a handy tool, a useful model of the way scientists in many disciplines accept that nature works; and a stunning achievement in the body of human knowledge... (and in this context, the word "theory" doesn't mean some half-assed guess, but a rigorously presented model, being subject to attempts by fellow scientists to test it, & to attempts to refute (!) the theory...
many others were trying to formulate explanations for the driving mechanism of the undeniable changes in the types of plants and animals that have taken place during the geological history of this planet; some were virtually saying the same thing as darwin (wallace, for example), & some were on a different tack (lamark, say)... i mean, it was obvious to any impartial observer that the fossil record indicated things used to be quite different...
darwin was the first to articulate the means ("natural selection") by which evolution proceded...
that "life is change" has been observed by philiophers, scientists, & poets for thousands of years...
as we learned more about the age of the earth, and finer details in how to read the fossil record, the true age of the earth bacame apparent (indeed, one of darwin's concerns about his theory was the lack our time for sufficient changes to take place within the space of a few thousand (or even a few hundred thoushand) years...
but hundreds of millions of years may indeed be sufficient, mmkay? (and 4.55 billion years seems to be plenty of time...)
biologists still disagree over the details, but generally agree on the overall validity of darwin's arguements (slow-n-steady vs punctuated equilibrium; tooth-n-claw struggle vs co-evolution & co-operation; "selfishness" vs "altruism"; etc.)

~
conditions on primeval earth were quite different --- once water managed to stay liquid (freezing here, boiling there, but most of it in a liquid state), well all sorts of things (OK, "chemical reactions") inevitably occured...
but the early atmosphere had NO free oxygen, so ya don't hafta worry about oxygen breaking down those poor fragile pre-life molecules...
anyways, reactions that were successful hung around, and some of them manages to do little catalytic tricks...
and cycling around the freeze/thaw cycle, with a base of microcrystalline clays, is another possible way for nice templates to work with nearby organic chemicals to set up self-replicating reactions... (so - the "primordial soup" could have been a cold consomme rather than a hot stew, heh...)
another way to protect these delicate reactions is to seperate them from the surrounding ennvironment... & agitated lipids & aqueous solutions spontaneously form "micelles" (little bubbles of water inside a double layer of fat molecules) - the prototype for all cell membranes...
anyways, various little groups of "descendents" of the early "winner molecules" would spread their winning mechanisms around, and working cooperatively, molecules often fared better than ones that tried to do it all alone...
and organic (CHON) molecules were battering the planet inside of thousands of comets that impacted the early earth, from slushballs the size of your fist to ones bigger than manhattan island, dirty snowballs rich with water & organic chemicals...

and the ancestor of all life on this planet (and still with the most biomass & the greatest influence on the planetary ecology) was/is the members of kingdom Monera (bacteria and their allies; a life-form we call "prokaryotic"...)
virtually every important biochemical mechanism was first developed by those little bacteria...
and most of them have been "learned" by "the rest of the living world" - the eukaryotes, which includes the other 4 kingdoms: protists, plants, fungi, & animals...

it is now accepted by evolutionary biologists that dr lynn margulis' hypothesis that all eukaryotic ancestors first arose as an alliance of diverse bacteria sharing common "housing", with each member perfoming a particular set of duties is the real deal, & now is called "the endosymbiont theory" ...
and once the blue-green algae (actually photosynthetic cyanobacters) "invented" photosynthesis & started releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, everything changed - oxygen is useful as a source of driving metabolism, but it not only supports combustion (stuff burns) but is very poisonous to organisms that thrive in a reducing atmosphere (like almost everything living on the planet at that time - the "precambrian") --- so, almost everything died off... and this invention of photosynthesis was passed on to the eukaryotic organisms called plants (via organelles = used-to-be-BG-alga) called chloroplasts... (it would seem that all of the organelles in every cell were once free-living prokaryotic organisms: golgi bodies, mitochondria, centromeres, cilia & flagella, etc... some even still have residual independent DNA-codes within them!)
(see margulis & sagan _microcosmos_)

~
~
~
and you see...
here we are...
back in the present time...
oh my goodness...

[cabdirazzaq]

Evolution doesnt happen over one night? Ok but If I would jump around for the rest of my life and let all my offspring indulge in this activity and we would do this in a span of million years, believe me, we would never form wings. There are millions of species living today,why, WHY doesn´t atleast one of them evolve to another being with new features?

[Hikaru Zero]

Evolution doesnt happen over one night? Ok but If I would jump around for the rest of my life and let all my offspring indulge in this activity and we would do this in a span of million years, believe me, we would never form wings. There are millions of species living today,why, WHY doesn´t atleast one of them evolve to another being with new features?

Oh, but they ARE evolving to other beings. You just can't see it because you only have the gift of life for a mere 100 or so years. And evolution simply does not happen so quickly. But rest assured, it IS happening. Perhaps over 1000 years, you might see a very small difference, and perhaps over 10,000 years you'd see a more significant difference, but 100 years just is not enough time, especially since neither of us are evolutionist scholars, and we don't know what to look for. The two of us might not recognize evolution even if we saw it over a process of 100,000 years.

And jumping around would not produce the physical need for wings anyway. All you'd get are the legs of a kangaroo. If you wanted wings, you might try falling from the sky for millions of years (assuming that could ever be possible), flapping your arms, until they eventually spread out and began to form wing-like appendages, or something. But that aside, that is not evolution, that is just a mutation, and likely wouldn't be carried over in genes. In order for something to evolve, all of its genes must carry the genetic code for the wings into its offspring, and I doubt that the body would add a specific genetic code just because you flapped your arms. The theory of evolution suggests that evolution is just changing, adding, or removing a particular part of the DNA just one part at a time, over years upon years.

[Razorofoccam]

Evolution doesnt happen over one night? Ok but If I would jump around for the rest of my life and let all my offspring indulge in this activity and we would do this in a span of million years, believe me, we would never form wings. There are millions of species living today,why, WHY doesn´t atleast one of them evolve to another being with new features?
Cabdirazzaq

But they do..We can force evolve short span life in the laboratory.
Bacteria and Virrii ..even some insects.

Baxteria and Virii ...
EVOLVE arround us as we speak,,,
Where did SARS come from??

Example: The new resistant TB....Where did it come from???
Enviromental evolution..and we created the enviroment to cause
it to be.

Look around my friend.
Reality does not match your book.
You want it to..
But wanting a thing has no realtion to the reality of a thing.

Occam asks that you really LOOK at why you believe your book is the truth.
Occam once believed what society said was truth...
He believed governments were for the people.
That Organised religion exists to help others.

Then ..He stopped believing what PEOPLE said
And started believing what REALITY said

This probably happened about the time occam read the words
"The sum total of human thought is 99% opinion,,And 1% fact"

Occam

[Granolahead]

WORDS OF WISDOM!


Then ..He stopped believing what PEOPLE said
And started believing what REALITY said

This probably happened about the time occam read the words
"The sum total of human thought is 99% opinion,,And 1% fact"
Occam

[Burbot]

Evolution doesnt happen over one night? Ok but If I would jump around for the rest of my life and let all my offspring indulge in this activity and we would do this in a span of million years, believe me, we would never form wings. There are millions of species living today,why, WHY doesn´t atleast one of them evolve to another being with new features?

Evolution is a slow process that comes from the "naural selection" that favors certin traits over others...For example long necks on girraffes, Darwin's therory states that in the beginning, girraffes had both long short and in between necks, the girraffes were competing with other organisms for leaves on shorter trees so to beat comprtition the when tto the higher trees...the ones wiht short necks died and could not reproduce, leaving the trait for loong necks....The way you are thinking is the Lamarak thinning where the girraffes s-t-r-e-t-c-h their necks to reach the leaves...this is wrong and proven wrong......The first proteins came from RNa strands that formed with poshphates, sugars and nitrogens, these then orgainized and collected ammino acids to made proteins And DNZ/RNA/tRNa arew supremly simple......All you need for a cell to start to form is a phospolipid bi layer which basically means som crap attached ot fats makes a liyr cause fats don't like water so they get close and the crap keeps the water out...


WE did not come from monkesy, we had a common ancestor, allong with all other mammals...When you look at the outward apperarence of mammals, they do not lookk the same, but you look at their skeletons limbs, and theye are very similar, even bird look close...More evidence is that embryos all look very similar when developing...

When the statement was made that fish cannot survive out of water, has anyone ever seen a mudskipper, these fish clmb trees, yes climb fucking trees...

Mountains form by plate techtonics where the crust floting on molten rock moves around and bump into eachother, they push up the crust (or down) and mountains and volcano's and earthquakes are formed...

My personal beleifs are that God Created the cosmos and
Earth, He then plaecd the conditions for life to form by itself, then let it be...

But if you say one thing about Evolution NEVER say WE CAME FROM MONKEYS! COMMON ANCESTOR!!!!!

[cabdirazzaq]

Once again is a weak view, how can you claim that only the strongest survived, evolved and adjusted- survival of the §fittest as evolutionists claim? Have you ever studied animals, these animals are not just brutal beings trying to survive, moving on instict without even bothering to care about anything else. Did you know some animals like the penguin, some birds and some sea animals risk their lives to save their children, a zebra which has escaped from danger runs back to tr to save and alarm other members of the flock, if they only think of surviving then how could these animals show compassion and so much care for their children where upon a certain bird plays injured so as to make the predator more intrested in it self other than its eggs. If it is all about instinct that came from one source then it is very weird indeed for you to assume that every animal with all these tons of different features and different instincts came to know all this by way of chance, some lobsters can migrate huge distances and find the correct path without ever had been there before while other animals like the bat can localize a small worm under a stone which is located under a pile if cloths in complete darkness! Insects are a whole new chapter, the can build such incredible societies such as ants, termits and bees, how can the bee exacly tell the remaining bees were he founded the honey, some researchers show that the bee does a ceratin dance to show the direction of the flowers to the other bees, how can it do this by way of instinct? I can answer that question:

68. And your Lord inspired the bee, saying: "Take you habitations in the mountains and in the trees and in what they (humans) erect.''

69. "Then, eat of all fruits, and follow the routes that your Lord made easy (for you).'' There comes forth from their bellies, a drink of varying colors, in which there is a cure for men. There is indeed a sign in that for people who reflect.[Quran 16.68-69]

Think about it, go and buy a book about animals and their fantastic world and try imagine all this fake evolution stuff which you are talking about, you will only realize that this is stupid to claim that it has formed by it self, if you can believe in this evolution stuff you will not find it har to believe this little story about a town:

"One day, a lump of clay, pressed between the rocks in a barren land, becomes wet after it rains. The wet clay dries and hardens when the sun rises, and takes on a stiff, resistant form. Afterwards, these rocks, which also served as a mould, are somehow smashed into pieces, and then a neat, well shaped, and strong brick appears. This brick waits under the same natural conditions for years for a similar brick to be formed. This goes on until hundreds and thousands of the same bricks have been formed in the same place. However, by chance, none of the bricks that were previously formed are damaged. Although exposed to storms, rain, wind, scorching sun, and freezing cold for thousands of years, the bricks do not crack, break up, or get dragged away, but wait there in the same place with the same determination for other bricks to form.
When the number of bricks is adequate, they erect a building by being arranged sideways and on top of each other, having been randomly dragged along by the effects of natural conditions such as winds, storms, or tornadoes. Meanwhile, materials such as cement or soil mixtures form under "natural conditions," with perfect timing, and creep between the bricks to clamp them to each other. While all this is happening, iron ore under the ground is shaped under "natural conditions" and lays the foundations of a building that is to be formed with these bricks. At the end of this process, a complete building rises with all its materials, carpentry, and installations intact.

Of course, a building does not only consist of foundations, bricks, and cement. How, then, are the other missing materials to be obtained? The answer is simple: all kinds of materials that are needed for the construction of the building exist in the earth on which it is erected. Silicon for the glass, copper for the electric cables, iron for the columns, beams, water pipes, etc. all exist under the ground in abundant quantities. It takes only the skill of "natural conditions" to shape and place these materials inside the building. All the installations, carpentry, and accessories are placed among the bricks with the help of the blowing wind, rain, and earthquakes. Everything has gone so well that the bricks are arranged so as to leave the necessary window spaces as if they knew that something called glass would be formed later on by natural conditions. Moreover, they have not forgotten to leave some space to allow the installation of water, electricity and heating systems, which are also later to be formed by chance. Everything has gone so well that "coincidences" and "natural conditions" produce a perfect design.

If you have managed to sustain your belief in this story so far, then you should have no trouble surmising how the town's other buildings, plants, highways, sidewalks, substructures, communications, and transportation systems came about." Darwinish Refuted


All you need for a cell to start to form is a phospolipid bi layer which basically means som crap attached ot fats makes a liyr cause fats don't like water so they get close and the crap keeps the water out...You try to form a fairtalelike picture where cells are easy and nothing really unsual when its among those things which are among the most complicated. If I have understod you correctly you claim that
DNZ/RNA/tRNa are simple and formed by them selves even though RNA is extremly difficult to form in a lab under the best condition and you claim that it came under lesser conditions? If we now assume that it did come under these conditions then how can RNA only one nucleotide chain "decide" to replicate, what did it use to accomplish this? Secondly how can you expect these things to form protein when RNA for instance only contains information about the protein, will a blueprint for a car create a car by it self?

[Razorofoccam]

cabdirazzaq

Your actual personal thoughts are interesting.
Your quotes from a book you claim as truth..purile.

Have you ever considered basing you life on YOUR thoughts...
Not the rubbish religion calls reason??

Occam bases his life and his ethic/morality on what HE thinks...And he still lives..
And prospers. And is happy.

Occam

[Burbot]

The reason some animal try and save their young is a principle you learn in Bio class not Qur'an class...R selected organism are usually amaller and have large numbers of young, they also don't ususll tkae that much care in protecting the, (like fish), K selected organisms (us) are generally larger, and take care of their young cause they are more helpless then R organisms...You know what, when you talk about faiy tales (and im not dogging you here, irespect the beleif in creationism) but people and life forming cause God says "Be", doen still not answer everything,

like how come , if the great flood happened (and im not saying you beekive this) how come then are the fossils of animal ass seperated, how come no human remains are found with dinosaurs...how come all around the earth, at the same level, there is a strip of uncommon substance and no dinosaurs are found above it...?

And in your previous statements where you say fish have no kidneys, they do, im lookind a a diagram right now...

The process of evolution, which is a slow one, happens when our sex cells mutate in a small section of its DNA, which inturn would make a new protein, and could make our har coarser for instance, or change the gene for the amount of hair, this mutation could, in fact be benifitial if we lived in a extremely cold climate, and did no live in houses, and all those with this mutant gene would have a natural advantage over those who don't...

Evolution can hapen without being natural as well, wild roses aren't big and bushy like the ones in stores, they were bread for more petals and buiggerones, and other various traits...

[Maes]

those who start jumping at earlier ages become basketball players because jumping often increases their tallness. Thus, they bear taller generations. (unless they marry a dwarf).

[cabdirazzaq]

The reason some animal try and save their young is a principle you learn in Bio class not Qur'an class...R selected organism are usually amaller and have large numbers of young, they also don't ususll tkae that much care in protecting the, (like fish), K selected organisms (us) are generally larger, and take care of their young cause they are more helpless then R organisms...You know what, when you talk about faiy tales (and im not dogging you here, irespect the beleif in creationism) but people and life forming cause God says "Be", doen still not answer everything,

like how come , if the great flood happened (and im not saying you beekive this) how come then are the fossils of animal ass seperated, how come no human remains are found with dinosaurs...how come all around the earth, at the same level, there is a strip of uncommon substance and no dinosaurs are found above it...?

And in your previous statements where you say fish have no kidneys, they do, im lookind a a diagram right now...

The process of evolution, which is a slow one, happens when our sex cells mutate in a small section of its DNA, which inturn would make a new protein, and could make our har coarser for instance, or change the gene for the amount of hair, this mutation could, in fact be benifitial if we lived in a extremely cold climate, and did no live in houses, and all those with this mutant gene would have a natural advantage over those who don't...

Evolution can hapen without being natural as well, wild roses aren't big and bushy like the ones in stores, they were bread for more petals and buiggerones, and other various traits...
Why doesn´t it answer the question? It is alot wiser to believe that intelligent life was created of one more knowledgeble and powerfull other than coincidence, that all millions of species with different features raging from good sight(eagles) and hearing(bats) to using chemical weapons as the very interesting bombardier beetle which has explosions insead its its body.

Are you seriously claiming that all fish are selfish when many of these creatures devote so much of their energy and time to guard their eggs? Think about insects, like as certain bee type for instance. The queen of the bumblebees searches for a place where she can build a nest then she memorizes its location and start collecting food and building the nest, after that she delivers her eggs and puts them in a symmetricall order, guarding them and when they hatch the bees already have their food ready which the queen has provided, now why should such a small instect go through all that problem and diffucuties when she might bee thrown out if a new queen comes along?
Darwin once said: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

If you would study animals you would see that his theory is not just broken but completly perished.

About noahs(peace be upon him) flood, if it covered the whole world as christians claim or not I don´t think I would dare to answer that because of the fear of speaking without knowledge.

And follow not that of which you have no knowledge. Verily, the hearing, and the sight, and the heart of each of those ones will be questioned (by Allah). [17.36]

But I can tell you that Allah(may he be exalted) does not punish a people without their having a messanger sent to them including the people of noah(peace be upon him)

59. And never will your Lord destroy the towns until He sends to their mother town a Messenger reciting to them Our Ayat. And never would We destroy the towns unless the people thereof are wrongdoers.

64. But they belied him, so We saved him and those along with him in the Fulk, and We drowned those who belied Our Ayat. They were indeed a blind people.

I have to come back to you on that one.

What you said about DNA cannot be proved sense we havent seen this little mutation which is suppose to be able to happen even though we live among millions of other species, interesting indeed.

[Burbot]

those who start jumping at earlier ages become basketball players because jumping often increases their tallness. Thus, they bear taller generations. (unless they marry a dwarf).

It doen not affect our gametes, so it doen not pass to our off sprong...


And I was not calling fish selfish, it is a different, yet eually good reproductive strategy, i have to go to school, so i will post later...

[Razorofoccam]

cabdirazzaq

Who?
Is ALLAH
And the 'koran' is a mysery to occam

Never heard of the guy..
Care to present his credentials?

[and credentials means REAL THINGS. like you, or your mosque...
or your brother in law.]

Occam

[Hikaru Zero]

cabdirazzaq

Who?
Is ALLAH
And the 'koran' is a mysery to occam

Never heard of the guy..
Care to present his credentials?

[and credentials means REAL THINGS. like you, or your mosque...
or your brother in law.]

Occam

If this Dr. Allah has solved all the mysteries of life and has put together the puzzles of the greater picture ...

Hikaru would like to see his degree in astrophysics, psychology, philosophy, medicine, engineering, biotechnology, computer science, quantum physics, fine arts, literature, wold history, and actuarial mathematics.

As certainly all the mysteries of life would require vast amounts of knowledge that only the most learned in this world might have.

[cabdirazzaq]

If this Dr. Allah has solved all the mysteries of life and has put together the puzzles of the greater picture ...

Hikaru would like to see his degree in astrophysics, psychology, philosophy, medicine, engineering, biotechnology, computer science, quantum physics, fine arts, literature, wold history, and actuarial mathematics.

As certainly all the mysteries of life would require vast amounts of knowledge that only the most learned in this world might have.Well the most learned once said that the world was flat and alot of other things. HE is the most knowledgeble and the one who gives knowledge so how can you compare a creation with a Creator? My lord is truly the one that holds everything together and the one to whom we all shall return. Who is Allah(may he be exalted)?, this is what Moses(peace be upon him) said:
23. Fir`awn said: "And what is the Lord of Al-`Alamin''

24. (Musa) said: "The Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, if you seek to be convinced with certainty.''

25. (Fir`awn) said to those around: "Do you not hear (what he says)''

26. (Musa) said: "Your Lord and the Lord of your ancient fathers!''

27. (Fir`awn) said: "Verily, your Messenger who has been sent to you is a madman!''

28. (Musa) said: "Lord of the east and the west, and all that is between them, if you did but understand!''

[Razorofoccam]

Well the most learned once said that the world was flat and alot of other things. HE is the most knowledgeble and the one who gives knowledge so how can you compare a creation with a Creator? My lord is truly the one that holds everything together and the one to whom we all shall return. Who is Allah(may he be exalted)?, this is what Moses(peace be upon him) said:
23. Fir`awn said: "And what is the Lord of Al-`Alamin''

24. (Musa) said: "The Lord of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between them, if you seek to be convinced with certainty.''

25. (Fir`awn) said to those around: "Do you not hear (what he says)''

26. (Musa) said: "Your Lord and the Lord of your ancient fathers!''

27. (Fir`awn) said: "Verily, your Messenger who has been sent to you is a madman!''

28. (Musa) said: "Lord of the east and the west, and all that is between them, if you did but understand!''
Cabdirazzaq

Yes they did say this,,,And that most learned were the preists of religion.

Between 300 ad and 1300 ad... The most knowledgible persons were those of religion...Yet they proclaimed the world FLAT.

The world was flat because preists said so....
You know this...
Why quibble?

A rational being came along and said it was not.
For saying the moons of jupiter did not orbit earth....
He was forced to recant...

Yet truth cannot be recanted...
The moons of jupiter orbit jupiter.
Not earth.
Earth is not the center of the universe..
Everything is circles in newtonian gravitics

Religion in the west has a strange history...It kept reason alive even though it did not follow it...
I Kept INFORMATION alive...
Calling any information sacred...
IF it did so today...It would be valid...[as it was then]
However..it digressed. It started calling the information...
A possesion of a god..to be given only to the faithfull.

Our world of supercomputers and cybernetics,,,renders that idea a joke.
None of these fields[or the fields that allow them] of undersanding are religious ones..
They are efforts of the rational...
Not the religious.

Occam

[cabdirazzaq]

Cabdirazzaq

Yes they did say this,,,And that most learned were the preists of religion.

Between 300 ad and 1300 ad... The most knowledgible persons were those of religion...Yet they proclaimed the world FLAT.

The world was flat because preists said so....
You know this...
Why quibble?

A rational being came along and said it was not.
For saying the moons of jupiter did not orbit earth....
He was forced to recant...

Yet truth cannot be recanted...
The moons of jupiter orbit jupiter.
Not earth.
Earth is not the center of the universe..
Everything is circles in newtonian gravitics

Religion in the west has a strange history...It kept reason alive even though it did not follow it...
I Kept INFORMATION alive...
Calling any information sacred...
IF it did so today...It would be valid...[as it was then]
However..it digressed. It started calling the information...
A possesion of a god..to be given only to the faithfull.

Our world of supercomputers and cybernetics,,,renders that idea a joke.
None of these fields[or the fields that allow them] of undersanding are religious ones..
They are efforts of the rational...
Not the religious.

OccamYou seem to cut everbody over one knife now, could you do me a favor and find a quote from the quran which tells us that the world is flat?

"They are efforts of the rational...
Not the religious."

Was not Einstein exploring the works of his lord when doing his research, the same with Isaac Newton and Keppler, Linneaus,J.Dalton, Galilei and many others of the kind?
Will it kill you to believe in Allah(may he be exalted) even though there is tons of other scientists that do today, the problem is that many of these researchers can not accept theory of evolution and they can not put their trust in the bible either which is filled with contridictions so they become an agnostic people without have considered any alternative.

[Razorofoccam]

Was not Einstein exploring the works of his lord when doing his research, the same with Isaac Newton and Keppler, Linneaus,J.Dalton, Galilei and many others of the kind?
Will it kill you to believe in Allah(may he be exalted) even though there is tons of other scientists that do today, the problem is that many of these researchers can not accept theory of evolution and they can not put their trust in the bible either which is filled with contridictions so they become an agnostic people without have considered any alternative.


Yes...They were

No..it will not kill occam to believe in allah// But give him a good reason to do so?

Can YOU?

What good reason do you propose?
You suggest occam should believe in allah
WHY
What has allah done for occam or anyone else?
Nothing...
but send them to hell
or if they were good..send them to heaven...
The antithesis of hell
And as hell is absurd,,so then is heaven

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Was not Einstein exploring the works of his lord when doing his research, the same with Isaac Newton and Keppler, Linneaus,J.Dalton, Galilei and many others of the kind?
Will it kill you to believe in Allah(may he be exalted) even though there is tons of other scientists that do today, the problem is that many of these researchers can not accept theory of evolution and they can not put their trust in the bible either which is filled with contridictions so they become an agnostic people without have considered any alternative.


Yes...They were

No..it will not kill occam to believe in allah// But give him a good reason to do so?

Can YOU?


What good reason do you propose?
You suggest occam should believe in allah
WHY
What has allah done for occam or anyone else?
Nothing...
but send them to hell
or if they were good..send them to heaven...
The antithesis of hell
And as hell is absurd,,so then is heaven

Occam

Well, Occam, one reason would be to save your skin, since many so-called followers of Islam feel that it is their duty to rid the world of me and you and anyone else that does not swallow their story hook, line, and sinker.
I really see a great deal of beauty in the Quran. It states "Allah loveth not the aggressor."
and Muhammed, peace be upon him, taught that women should have every right a man does, 1300 years ago. They had the right to divorce, to vote, to own property, all 1200 years before Canada voted that they were in fact 'persons' and therefore could vote here. then in 1960, Canada even went so far as to extend that same privilege to the First Nations people too.
I am at a loss regarding how so many people who are Muslim can justify their hatred, when the Prophet taught His followers to treat all believers fairly, meaning Jews and Christians. I would still be left out, but hey it would be a start.

[Hikaru Zero]

Well, Occam, one reason would be to save your skin, since many so-called followers of Islam feel that it is their duty to rid the world of me and you and anyone else that does not swallow their story hook, line, and sinker.
I really see a great deal of beauty in the Quran. It states "Allah loveth not the aggressor."
and Muhammed, peace be upon him, taught that women should have every right a man does, 1300 years ago. They had the right to divorce, to vote, to own property, all 1200 years before Canada voted that they were in fact 'persons' and therefore could vote here. then in 1960, Canada even went so far as to extend that same privilege to the First Nations people too.
I am at a loss regarding how so many people who are Muslim can justify their hatred, when the Prophet taught His followers to treat all believers fairly, meaning Jews and Christians. I would still be left out, but hey it would be a start.

Hikaru respects everyone who believes in the Quran and actually follows it (equal rights for women, fair treatment, not being aggressive, etc.). However, Hikaru has yet to meet even one person who meets those criteria. Every Allah-follower Hikaru has ever met has been merely a tool of some other god, not the true Allah they claim to serve.

[Razorofoccam]

Well, Occam, one reason would be to save your skin, since many so-called followers of Islam feel that it is their duty to rid the world of me and you and anyone else that does not swallow their story hook, line, and sinker.
I really see a great deal of beauty in the Quran. It states "Allah loveth not the aggressor."
and Muhammed, peace be upon him, taught that women should have every right a man does, 1300 years ago. They had the right to divorce, to vote, to own property, all 1200 years before Canada voted that they were in fact 'persons' and therefore could vote here. then in 1960, Canada even went so far as to extend that same privilege to the First Nations people too.
I am at a loss regarding how so many people who are Muslim can justify their hatred, when the Prophet taught His followers to treat all believers fairly, meaning Jews and Christians. I would still be left out, but hey it would be a start.

BlackGuard

Agreed.
Have only read bits of the quran...
Where are the bits that say any who do not believe it should die?

To occam, religion has worth...As a way of life..
It is a thing many seem to need..and that is fine.

But 'organised religion' the egos of the powerfull in those organisations..
Seem to think they know best...
Based on the book..[or using it as an excuse]
Yet the book does not speak for humanity.
As humanity includes all, and most dont believe the book.
Then 'organised religion' are fools.

Organised religion can ONLY EVER BE A SMALL PART OF OUR THINKING.
OR our acts.
Example.
What has religion to do with 'fusion power research'
nothing.
But it will one day provide all electrical power.
A thing that allows modern society.

Organised religion..as a human control method..MAY one day control fusion power plants.
Will they kill the non muslims/christians who run them, NO

They will offer them life or death options..SAY you are a moslem/christian, And all will be well.
Fools. Control freaks. Power

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Hikaru respects everyone who believes in the Quran and actually follows it (equal rights for women, fair treatment, not being aggressive, etc.). However, Hikaru has yet to meet even one person who meets those criteria. Every Allah-follower Hikaru has ever met has been merely a tool of some other god, not the true Allah they claim to serve.
Hikaru

Occam has met some who are truly peacefull. Yet they were cowed by the dogma of their religion.

Maybe religion is OK..[as a social system]

Its the fuckers on earth who run the religions that are the evil of it.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

the problem is that many of these researchers can not accept theory of evolution and they can not put their trust in the bible either which is filled with contridictions so they become an agnostic people without have considered any alternative.
Do you say the quran is free of contradictions?

Occam

[cabdirazzaq]

Yes that´s what I am saying, I claim that it´s free from contradictions

4.82. Do they not then consider the Qur'an carefully Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely, have found therein contradictions in abundance

[BlackGuardXIII]

Hikaru

Occam has met some who are truly peacefull. Yet they were cowed by the dogma of their religion.

Maybe religion is OK..[as a social system]

Its the fuckers on earth who run the religions that are the evil of it.

OccamOn the whole I find religious devotees to be good, ethical, caring people, and their leaders to be, on the whole, slimeballs.

I met a couple who are involved at the highes