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 highest levels of the Canadian Ismaili Muslims, and to be totally blunt, I have not met any nicer people. Some who were as nice, but none nicer. Their net worth is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, they invited me for dinner, and when I declined cuz I had a class that night, they made me up a package of roti's and a can of pop for the road.
The wealthiest people I have met, and also, as warm, sincere, joyous and modest as anyone I have ever met.
I believe that the minority of radical fundamentalists just get all the press in any group, be it teenagers, Church goers, gays, etc., whereas the vast majority are never acknowledged because not doing something isnt good press.

[BlackGuardXIII]

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.

Who are you who knows the future so certainly. I am curious. I would give fusion as one of the possibilities. What about the energy that was harnessed to build Coral Castles in Florida, is that not also a possible power source of the future? Or tidal power, wind power, solar power, geo thermal power, but I digress.
I've just always wanted to say I digress for some reason, don't know why, I just like the sound of it. It sounds so authoritative. lol

[BlackGuardXIII]

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

that is exactly my point, it says the opposite. I have observed over and over in all organized religions, that the leaders have this amazing ability to take a phrase and spin it so much that it ends up being taught as the opposite of what is actually written. The Quran tells Muslims to deal fairly, and respect fellow believers, ie. Jews and Christians.
I am unsure of what it advises re: atheists, animists, witches, etc. but no doubt whatever it says is being spun to mean kill them all by false Muslims like Osama.

[BlackGuardXIII]

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 abundanceThat is a bold claim, cabdirazzaq, but I can accept it. Can you accept my beliefs as being as true and valid as yours, even though I am more of a semi-Buddhist/Traditional Tribal Spirituality believer?

[cabdirazzaq]

Thank you for accepting my believes but you must understand that my whole life is founded on the belief that my religion is correct and in that I find no doubts and I will not let anyone ever drag me away from it either by preaching or by force and I would rather be crucified than to say that Im a disbeliever because every pleasure I hold so dear comes from my religion and giving it up is like giving away my life which would then have lost all meaning, the point with me writing this is for you to understand that I can´t just as easily as you can say that I accept your view as correct because that would make me go against that which I believe in. I do not believe in that which you do but that doesn´t mean that I shouldn´t treat you with the amount of kindness I have recieved from you.

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.[60.8]

[strawpuppy]

Thank you for accepting my believes but you must understand that my whole life is founded on the belief that my religion is correct and in that I find no doubts and I will not let anyone ever drag me away from it either by preaching or by force and I would rather be crucified than to say that Im a disbeliever because every pleasure I hold so dear comes from my religion and giving it up is like giving away my life which would then have lost all meaning, the point with me writing this is for you to understand that I can´t just as easily as you can say that I accept your view as correct because that would make me go against that which I believe in. I do not believe in that which you do but that doesn´t mean that I shouldn´t treat you with the amount of kindness I have recieved from you.

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.[60.8]
You have written this very well.
I understand and respect the faith you have.
There is one question, and it is a sincere one.

Where is Allah?
Is he in space?
Is he in a spirit world?
Is he the universe, and if so, how is he it. Is he a dimension that we cannot percieve?
Where do the martyrs go?

I ask these questions as I am searching for God.
One could almost say that God has found me, but like a shadow when the light is upon it, it defies close scrutiny.

Thanks

strawpup

[Razorofoccam]

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.

Who are you who knows the future so certainly. I am curious. I would give fusion as one of the possibilities. What about the energy that was harnessed to build Coral Castles in Florida, is that not also a possible power source of the future? Or tidal power, wind power, solar power, geo thermal power, but I digress.
I've just always wanted to say I digress for some reason, don't know why, I just like the sound of it. It sounds so authoritative. lol
Blackguard...

Occam knows not...he extrapolates.
If it were up to him we would use orbital microwve arrays.
Beaming all the power we need from orbit..

It is an example....
It may not be fusion that supplies modern society in the decades to come...
It will most likely be a cluster of technologies. As it is now...
[solar coal/oil. fission]

But ,,, who decides what we will use?
Not the guys that make them..

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

[QUOTE=cabdirazzaq]Thank you for accepting my believes but you must understand that my whole life is founded on the belief that my religion is correct and in that I find no doubts and I will not let anyone ever drag me away from it either by preaching or by force and I would rather be crucified than to say that Im a disbeliever because every pleasure I hold so dear comes from my religion and giving it up is like giving away my life which would then have lost all meaning, the point with me writing this is for you to understand that I can´t just as easily as you can say that I accept your view as correct because that would make me go against that which I believe in. I do not believe in that which you do but that doesn´t mean that I shouldn´t treat you with the amount of kindness I have recieved from you.

Cabdiazzaq

Do you believe you should be kind because of pity
Or reason...?

Occam gives ALL HUMANS the inherent right to believe what they wish.
Do you?

Do you believe that your perspective is the only truth?
If you do...
Then you humour us with your generosity.
You allow us to speak because you have no option.
If you could stop occam from saying that the quaran is a book just like any other book [as it is] That it was not the word of god but the words of men who wrote it. [just like the other book]
Would you stop him?

Occam

[cabdirazzaq]

You have written this very well.
I understand and respect the faith you have.
There is one question, and it is a sincere one.

Where is Allah?
Is he in space?
Is he in a spirit world?
Is he the universe, and if so, how is he it. Is he a dimension that we cannot percieve?
Where do the martyrs go?
I ask these questions as I am searching for God.
One could almost say that God has found me, but like a shadow when the light is upon it, it defies close scrutiny.

Thanks

strawpupAllah(may he be exalted) is above the heavens, above his creation and his throne which means that he is not everywhere as some people claim or that he is everything but ofcourse with his knowledge and with his vison and hearing he reaches everywhere. The odd thing [for me] to understand is how christians can accept this fact yet claim that the lord of the worlds, my God and their God fertilized a woman such as if he was an animal of some kind, exalted is he above what these people say!

"O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allaah aught but the truth. The Messiah ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allaah and His Word, (“Be!” — and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rooh) created by Him; so believe in Allaah and His Messengers. Say not: ‘Three (trinity)!’ Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allaah is (the only) One Ilaah (God), glory is to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allaah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. [al-Nisa’ 4:171]

The true martyrs will be given the reward they deserved, these people didn´t just believe while doing good deeds put furthermore laid down their own life for the sake of Allah(may he be exalted) and thus proved that faith wasn´t something which was just on their tongue. The reward for the martyrs are known but what people have difficulties to understand is who the martyrs are? Is a martyr one who bombs him self up in a bus full with Israeli children or in a market even though Allah(may he be exalted) has forbidden corruption? Then what about a man which is living under the most horrorfying circumstances, under opression, humality and poverty who decided to fight these enemy soldiers for the sake of his lord, is this man a terrorist, according to alot of magazines and newspapers here in Sweden and the rest of Western countries he is which I found very strange, appearently one who defends his children and his fellow brothers lifes is a terrorist while the one who goes to another country killing and blowing up houses in a country which he has nothing to do with is a hero? I hoped I answered your questions.

Do you believe you should be kind because of pity


Or reason...?Because of pity.



Say. Surely my prayer and my sacrifice and my life and my death are (all) for Allah, the Lord of the worlds; [An`aam 6.162]

Do you think when I'm harrased or mocked at school for my islamic clothing or for any other reason that I ignore them because of reason or because of the statement of my lord(interpretation of the meaning):
O you who believe! seek assistance through patience and prayer; surely Allah is with the patient.

Surely I have rewarded them this day because they were patient, that they are the achievers. [Mu´minoon 23.111]

Do you think that it is beacause of reason in which I clean the house with a vaccum-cleaner, go shopping for groceries and wash the dishes and is it because of reason in which I hate to see my parents lift their finger when I'm alive , perfectly healthy or to ever say something bad to them, or could it be because Allah(may he be exatled) has said(interpretation of the meaning):

“And We have enjoined on man to be dutiful and kind to his parents. His mother bears him with hardship. And she brings him forth with hardship…” [al-Ahqaaf 46:15]

“…give thanks to Me and to your parents…” [Luqmaan 31:14];

“And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor shout at them but address them in terms of honour. And lower unto them the wing of submission and humility through mercy, and say: ‘My Lord! Bestow on them Your Mercy as they did bring me up when I was young’” [al-Israa’ 17:23]

Do you think I declined from accepting a "generous" offer and forming an illict relationship with a charming girl(I know, its very odd that any girl would like me) in my former school because of reason or because Allah(may he be exalted) has said in the quran(interpretation of the meaning):



“O you who believe! Follow not the footsteps of Shaytaan (Satan). And whosoever follows the footsteps of Shaytaan (Satan), then, verily, he commands Al Fahshaa’ [i.e. to commit indecency (illegal sexual intercourse)], and Al Munkar [disbelief and polytheism (i.e. to do evil and wicked deeds; and to speak or to do what is forbidden in Islam)[Noor 24.21]



Do you think the reason for which I give away pretty much every coin I recieve is because of reason or because I've seen hungry poor children with my own eyes and giving to these is showing gratefullness to the one who provided me? Things I say and things I do is often because I love my lord not because of logic. Before I was a practising muslim my personality and my morals were completly different, religion wasn exacly the first thing which I liked to discuss, I was truly living in a mirage chasing my lusts thinking it would quench my thirst and Finally Allah(may he be exalted) says(interpretation of the meaning):



[b]It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfil the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing. [Baqarah 2.177]



Say, (O Muhammad, to mankind): If ye love Allah, follow me; Allah will love you and forgive you your sins. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. [Imraan 3.31]

[Kharakov]

You allow us to speak because you have no option.
If you could stop occam from saying that the quaran is a book just like any other book [as it is] That it was not the word of god but the words of men who wrote it. [just like the other book]
Would you stop him?Can a man ever stop God's plan from unfolding?
Would a (wise) man who respected God want too?
The words that you write are caused by God, as well as the words in the koran. They just have differing levels of exposure, due to the fact that they are required by different people.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Thank you for accepting my believes but you must understand that my whole life is founded on the belief that my religion is correct and in that I find no doubts and I will not let anyone ever drag me away from it either by preaching or by force and I would rather be crucified than to say that Im a disbeliever because every pleasure I hold so dear comes from my religion and giving it up is like giving away my life which would then have lost all meaning, the point with me writing this is for you to understand that I can?t just as easily as you can say that I accept your view as correct because that would make me go against that which I believe in. I do not believe in that which you do but that doesn?t mean that I shouldn?t treat you with the amount of kindness I have recieved from you.

Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.[60.8]
I thank you for your honesty, and for your kindness. I admire many Muslims, and followers of many faiths, yet I cannot in good conscience join one particular one. My relationship with Spirit is personal, and that is okay by me.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Can a man ever stop God's plan from unfolding?
Would a (wise) man who respected God want too?
The words that you write are caused by God, as well as the words in the koran. They just have differing levels of exposure, due to the fact that they are required by different people.

Yes, nothing is impossible.
I cannot say, since although I pray "Thy will be done", I sometimes want my will to be done, and I am not as wise as I hope to be.
I tend to agree. What I feel is that we see Spirit in our own way, and whatever way that is, that is how Spirit sees us.

[Kharakov]

'can a man stop God's plan from unfolding?'

1. Yes, nothing is impossible.When you are part of God's plan, all of your actions are part of the plan as well.

I cannot say, since although I pray "Thy will be done", I sometimes want my will to be done, and I am not as wise as I hope to be.When someone prays this way, it is necessary for it to happen. When you have your own desire that goes against what is given to you, it is necessary for you to have this desire to mold your understanding.

I tend to agree. What I feel is that we see Spirit in our own way, and whatever way that is, that is how Spirit sees us. God knows the way that individuals view God and brings us what we need to add to our understanding of God.

[BlackGuardXIII]

'can a man stop God's plan from unfolding?'
When you are part of God's plan, all of your actions are part of the plan as well.

When someone prays this way, it is necessary for it to happen. When you have your own desire that goes against what is given to you, it is necessary for you to have this desire to mold your understanding.

God knows the way that individuals view God and brings us what we need to add to our understanding of God.

lol, so it was a trick question.... got me.
My desires are mostly selfish.
yep

[Kharakov]

2. My desires are mostly selfish. I'd say that the root of desire is self. How can something want something without having a concept of self gaining something?

What if something constantly lets you hurt it in order to give you pleasure, and you finally realise your pleasure causes the other pain (although you tried to ignore it for a long time). What do you do then?

I would call any response to the painful knowledge (guilt) that your pleasure has depended upon anothers pain a selfish response. If you can ignore the pain, you keep going. If the guilt motivates you to stop (because the pleasure gained is not worth the painful knowledge that you are inflicting pain on another), you stop. Either way, it is a selfish action.

To have the greatest pleasure you must not inflict unnecessary pain upon your self and others. You must learn to pick and choose, and how to throw the blade.

[Razorofoccam]

Desire is the reason for all things
Reason allows desire to have them.

Occam

[WhisperingWoods]

Darwin has been scientifically proven wrong in some areas. Evolution did and still does occur though.

Hey guys, do you know what would help your arguments? Proofread your text for errors. Errors in text will make the writer sound like an idiot. I believe you learned this in 5th grade.

[cabdirazzaq]

Darwin has been scientifically proven wrong in some areas. Evolution did and still does occur though.

If it still does, then where is it?

[WhisperingWoods]

You would have to be a complete moron to not understand that it takes place over millions of years.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Darwin has been scientifically proven wrong in some areas. Evolution did and still does occur though.

Hey guys, do you know what would help your arguments? Proofread your text for errors. Errors in text will make the writer sound like an idiot. I believe you learned this in 5th grade.

I hope I dont sound like a moron, but if so, so be it.
Einstein has also been proven wrong, but could not have been if he had not first gotten us as far as he did. That is how science works. I learned that all by myself, outside of school.
If Darwin was proven wrong that proves he was proven wrong, and that is all. You cannot throw all his research out cuz of it. I don't know what points were found to be in error, but I'll bet that most of his work still stands.

I mentioned in another post that all life on earth shares a common protein, which does seem to point to a common source.

Also, periodic cataclysms that kill off numerous species speed up the process, and add a chaos factor to evolution, that is hard to measure.

If God created the world, it appears it was done methodically, and then let go to run its course. I believe that creation vs. evolution is an unnecessary quarrel, they can both be right.

[WhisperingWoods]

I hope I dont sound like a moron, but if so, so be it.
Einstein has also been proven wrong, but could not have been if he had not first gotten us as far as he did. That is how science works. I learned that all by myself, outside of school.
If Darwin was proven wrong that proves he was proven wrong, and that is all. You cannot throw all his research out cuz of it. I don't know what points were found to be in error, but I'll bet that most of his work still stands.

I mentioned in another post that all life on earth shares a common protein, which does seem to point to a common source.

Also, periodic cataclysms that kill off numerous species speed up the process, and add a chaos factor to evolution, that is hard to measure.

If God created the world, it appears it was done methodically, and then let go to run its course. I believe that creation vs. evolution is an unnecessary quarrel, they can both be right.Yeah, I get what you're saying. I didn't mean that we should toss the guy's work out the window, I just meant that Darwin was wrong about one of his theories which has since been corrected. He was, however, correct in stating that natural selection is a speedier form of evolution. Example: animals not tall enough to get to the food will die off while the taller ones reproduce and help the species become taller. Also, if two groups of the same species have different niches, they can form different species over time. This is why we have so many different kinds of birds/snakes/people/whatever. There are more but again--I am lazy this week.


And I suppose that evolutionists and creationists can both be 'right'.. maybe if and when the scientists prove something spectacular, the fundamentalist religions say "Oh yeah... uh.. god did that! It's in the bible! Look!" *writes it into the bible*. Otherwise, the assumption that the bible is god's word is totally blown. Well, it's not god's word in the first place. It is just a collection of stories based loosely on <insert miracle here>.

[POPthree13]

If it still does, then where is it?All over. New species of bird and insect are identified every year, not only because they were unfound, but because new species emerge on a regular basis as two populations sever ties and begin adapting to their specific environments.

Also, the reason the cold and flu haven't been eradicated by modern medicine is that they adapt to anything we throw at them and the species that attack us this year will be different than the ones that attacked us last year. Scientist force evolution in laboratory all the time (like in fruit flies) to study how the process works.

You would have to be a complete moron to not understand that it takes place over millions of years.Well at least tens of thousands of years. Mans oldest known ancestors are less than 7 million years old, but we have evolved through number of species:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (6-7 million)
Orrorin tugenensis(6-7 million)
Ardipithecus ramidus(5 million)
Australopithecus anamensis(4.5 Million)
Australopithecus afarensis(4 Million)
Kenyanthropus platyops(3.5 Million)
Australopithecus africanus(3 Million)
Australopithecus garhi(2.5 Million)
Australopithecus aethiopicus (2.5 Million)
Australopithecus boisei (2.5 Million)
Australopithecus robustus (2 Million)
Homo habilis (2.5 Million)
Homo georgicus (2 Million)
Homo erectus (1.8 Million)
Homo ergaster (1.9 Million)
Homo antecessor (.8 Million)
Homo heidelbergensis (.5 Million)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (.3 million)
Homo sapiens sapiens (.2 Million)

[cabdirazzaq]

All over. New species of bird and insect are identified every year, not only because they were unfound, but because new species emerge on a regular basis as two populations sever ties and begin adapting to their specific environments.

Also, the reason the cold and flu haven't been eradicated by modern medicine is that they adapt to anything we throw at them and the species that attack us this year will be different than the ones that attacked us last year. Scientist force evolution in laboratory all the time (like in fruit flies) to study how the process works.

Well at least tens of thousands of years. Mans oldest known ancestors are less than 7 million years old, but we have evolved through number of species:
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (6-7 million)
Orrorin tugenensis(6-7 million)
Ardipithecus ramidus(5 million)
Australopithecus anamensis(4.5 Million)
Australopithecus afarensis(4 Million)
Kenyanthropus platyops(3.5 Million)
Australopithecus africanus(3 Million)
Australopithecus garhi(2.5 Million)
Australopithecus aethiopicus (2.5 Million)
Australopithecus boisei (2.5 Million)
Australopithecus robustus (2 Million)
Homo habilis (2.5 Million)
Homo georgicus (2 Million)
Homo erectus (1.8 Million)
Homo ergaster (1.9 Million)
Homo antecessor (.8 Million)
Homo heidelbergensis (.5 Million)
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (.3 million)
Homo sapiens sapiens (.2 Million)
If I said that I´ve been to space would you believe me? Most of you probably doubt such a thing but you wouldn´t be able to prove my statement wrong, I just might of snuck in to one of those spaceships...
My point is, you have no evidence to support all this you have written, how do you know that the new species that are being found are not such that already existed sence there are thousands and thousands of animals that are yet to be discovered? Interesting(amusing) family tree you have painted out, most of them are apes the rest are humans- there are no middle ones. Not only parts of Darwins theory is incorrect but the most important part of his theory is incorrect, he assumed that the cell was something small pathetic little thing that probably could form by it self and that is what [almost what]his whole theory was established on, the cell was for him nothing but a black box as M.Behe writes in his book Darwin´s black box. A black box is a thing that works but we don´t really think or know how, like the computer which you are no using, it does a whole lot without we thinking about it. I want you to have little patient for what you are about to read, this is little biochemistry about blood congealing and how it works. I do not want you to read it all but just look through it and then tell me how and if this could ever be formed by "small stepts"- taken from Behe´s book Darwin´s Black Box, he starts with comparing the blood congealing "machine" with a Rube Goldberg machine:
My point is, you have no evidence to support all this you have written, how do you know that the new species that are being found are not such that already existed sence there are thousands and thousands of animals that are yet to be discovered? Interesting(amusing) family tree you have painted out, most of them are apes the rest are humans- there are no middle ones. Not only parts of Darwins theory is incorrect but the most important part of his theory is incorrect, he assumed that the cell was something small pathetic little thing that probably could form by it self and that is what [almost what]his whole theory was established on, the cell was for him nothing but a black box as M.Behe writes in his book Darwin´s black box. A black box is a thing that works but we don´t really think or know how, like the computer which you are no using, it does a whole lot without we thinking about it. I want you to have little patient for what you are about to read, you do not need to read it all but just look it through and tell me if it could and how it could be formed by it self, gradually(from Darwin´s Black Box:

When you think about it for a moment, you realize that the Rube Goldberg machine is irreducibly complex. It is a single system composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning. Unlike the examples of irreducible complexity discussed earlier, the cartoon system is not a single piece where the components simultaneously exert force against each other. Rather, it is composed of separate pieces each acting in turn, one after the other, to accomplish its function. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, p 76, pub by The Free Press a division of Simon and Schuster, 1996http://www.intelligentdesign.org/behe/rube_napkin.gif"About 2 to 3 percent of the protein in blood plasma (the part that's left after the red blood cells are removed) consists of a protein complex called fibrinogen. The name fibrinogen is easy to remember because the protein makes "fibers" that form the clot. Yet fibrinogen is only the potential clot material. Like the telephone pole before it is felled in the story about Foghorn Leghorn, fibrinogen is a weapon waiting to be unleashed. Almost all of the other proteins involved in blood clotting control the timing and placement of the clot. This too is similar to our cartoon example: all components except the telephone pole were required to control the pole's fall.
Fibrinogen is a composite of six protein chains, containing twin pairs of three different proteins. Electron microscopy has shown that fibrinogen is a rod-shaped molecule, with two round bumps on each end of the rod and a single round bump in the middle. So fibrinogen resembles a set of barbells with an extra set of weights in the middle of the bar.
Normally fibrinogen is dissolved in plasma, like salt is dissolved in ocean water. It floats around, peacefully minding its own business, until a cut or injury causes bleeding. Then another protein, called thrombin, slices off several small pieces from two of the three pairs of protein chains in fibrinogen. The trimmed protein--now called fibrin--has sticky patches exposed on its surface that had been covered by the pieces that were cut off. The sticky patches are precisely complementary to portions of other fibrin molecules. The complementary shapes allow large numbers of fibrins to aggregate with each other. Fibrins do not stick together randomly. Because of the shape of the fibrin molecule, long threads form, cross over each other, and (much as a fisherman's net traps fish) make a pretty protein meshwork that entraps blood cells. This is the initial clot. The meshwork covers a large area with a minimum of protein; if it simply formed a lump, much more protein would be required to clog up an area.

Thrombin, which cuts off the pieces from fibrinogen, is like the circular saw from the Foghorn Leghorn cartoon. Like the saw, thrombin sets in motion the final step of a controlled process. But what if the circular saw ran continuously, without needing the other steps to turn it on? In that case the saw would immediately cut the rope holding up the telephone pole, well before Foghorn moseyed into the vicinity. Similarly, if the only proteins involved in blood coagulation were thrombin and fibrinogen, the process would be uncontrolled. Thrombin would quickly clip all of the fibrinogen to make fibrin; a massive clot would form throughout the animal's circulatory system, solidifying it. Unlike cartoon characters, real animals would rapidly perish. To avoid such an unhappy ending an organism must control the activity of thrombin.

The body commonly stores enzymes (proteins that catalyze a chemical reaction, like the cleavage of fibrinogen) in an inactive form for later use. The inactive forms are called proenzymes. When a signal is received that a certain enzyme is needed, the corresponding proenzyme is activated to give the mature enzyme. As with the conversion of fibrinogen to fibrin, proenzymes are often activated by cutting off a piece of the proenzyme that is blocking a critical area. The strategy is commonly used with digestive enzymes. Large quantities can be stored as inactive proenzymes, then quickly activated when the next good meal comes along.
Thrombin initially exists as the inactive form, prothrombin. Because it is inactive, prothrombin can't cleave fibrinogen, and the animal is saved from death by massive, inappropriate clotting. Still, the dilemma of control remains. If the cartoon saw were inactivated, the telephone pole would not fall at the wrong time. If nothing switches on the saw, however, then it would never cut the rope; the pole wouldn't fall even at the right time. If fibrinogen and prothrombin were the only proteins in the blood-clotting pathway, again our animal would be in bad shape. When the animal was cut, prothrombin would just float helplessly by the fibrinogen as the animal bled to death. Because prothrombin cannot cleave fibrinogen to fibrin, something is needed to activate prothrombin. Perhaps the reader can see why the blood-clotting system is called a cascade--a system where one component activates another component, which activates a third component, and so on.
A protein called Stuart factor cleaves prothrombin, turning it into active thrombin that can then cleave fibrinogen to fibrin to form the blood clot. Unfortunately, as you may have guessed, if Stuart factor, prothrombin, and fibrinogen were the only blood-clotting proteins, then Stuart factor would rapidly trigger the cascade, congealing all the blood of the organism. So Stuart factor also exists in an inactive form that must first be activated.
At this point there's a little twist to our developing chicken-and-egg scenario. Even activated Stuart factor can't turn on prothrombin. Stuart factor and prothrombin can be mixed in a test tube for longer than it would take a large animal to bleed to death without any noticeable production of thrombin. It turns out that another protein, called accelerin, is needed to increase the activity of Stuart factor. The dynamic duo--accelerin and activated Stuart factor--cleave prothrombin fast enough to do the bleeding animal some good. So in this step we need two separate proteins to activate one proenzyme.
Yes, accelerin also initially exists in an inactive form, called proaccelerin (sigh). And what activates it? Thrombin! But thrombin, as we have seen, is further down the regulatory cascade than proaccelerin. So thrombin regulating the production of accelerin is like having the granddaughter regulate production of the grandmother. Nonetheless, due to a very low rate of cleavage of prothrombin by Stuart factor, it seems there is always a trace of thrombin in the bloodstream. Blood clotting is therefore auto-catalytic, because proteins in the cascade accelerate the production of more of the same proteins.
We need to back up a little at this point because, as it turns out, prothrombin as it is initially made by the cell can't be transformed into thrombin, even in the presence of activated Stuart factor and accelerin. Prothrombin must first be modified by having ten specific amino acid residues, called glutamate (Glu) residues, changed to y-carboxyglutamate (Gla) residues. The modification can be compared to placing a lower jaw onto the upper jaw of a skull. The completed structure can bite and hang on to the bitten object; without the lower jaw, the skull couldn't hang on. In the case of prothrombin, Gla residues "bite" (or bind) calcium, allowing prothrombin to stick to the surfaces of cells. Only the intact, modified calcium-prothrombin complex, bound to a cell membrane, can be cleaved by activated Stuart factor and accelerin to give thrombin.
The modification of prothrombin does not happen by accident. Like virtually all biochemical reactions, it requires catalysis by a specific enzyme. In addition to the enzyme, however, the conversion of Glu to Gla needs another component: vitamin K. Vitamin K is not a protein; rather, it is a small molecule. Like a gun that needs bullets, the enzyme that changes Glu to Gla needs vitamin K to work. One type of rat poison is based on the role that vitamin K plays in blood coagulation. The synthetic poison, called "warfarin" (for the Wisconsin Alumni Research Fund, which receives a cut of the profits from its sale), was made to look like vitamin K to the enzyme that uses it. In the presence of warfarin the enzyme is unable to modify prothrombin. When rats eat food poisoned with warfarin, prothrombin is neither modified nor cleaved, and the poisoned animals bleed to death.
But it still seems we haven't made much progress--now we have to go back and ask what activates Stuart factor. It turns out that it can be activated by two different routes, called the intrinsic and the extrinsic pathways. In the intrinsic pathway, all the proteins required for clotting are contained in the blood plasma; in the extrinsic pathway, some clotting proteins occur on cells. Let's first examine the intrinsic pathway.
When an animal is cut, a protein called Hageman factor sticks to the surface of cells near the wound. Bound Hageman factor is then cleaved by a protein called HMK to yield activated Hageman factor. Immediately the activated Hageman factor converts another protein, called prekallikrein, to its active form, kallikrein. Kallikrein helps HMK speed up the conversion of more Hageman factor to its active form. Activated Hageman factor and HMK then together transform another protein, called PTA, to its active form. Activated PTA in turn, together with the activated form of another protein (discussed below) called convertin, switch a protein called Christmas factor to its active form. Finally, activated Christmas factor, together with antihemophilic factor (which is itself activated by thrombin in a manner similar to that of proaccelerin) changes Stuart factor to its active form.
Like the intrinsic pathway, the extrinsic pathway is also a cascade. The extrinsic pathway begins when a protein called proconvertin is turned into convertin by activated Hageman factor and thrombin. In the presence of another protein, tissue factor, convertin changes Stuart factor to its active form. Tissue factor, however, only appears on the outside of cells that are usually not in contact with blood. Therefore, only when an injury brings tissue into contact with blood will the extrinsic pathway be initiated. (A cut plays a role similar to that of Foghorn Leghorn picking up the dollar. It is the initiating event--something outside of the cascade mechanism itself.)
The intrinsic and extrinsic pathways cross over at several points. Hageman factor, activated by the intrinsic pathway, can switch on proconvertin of the extrinsic pathway. Convertin can then feed back into the intrinsic pathway to help activated PTA activate Christmas factor. Thrombin itself can trigger both branches of the clotting cascade by activating antihemophilic factor, which is required to help activated Christmas factor in the conversion of Stuart factor to its active form, and also by activating proconvertin.

Slogging through a description of the blood-clotting system makes a fellow yearn for the simplicity of a cartoon Rube Goldberg machine."

This is only one small system, then think about all other systems in the universe! IT COULD NOT, I SAID NOT BE FORMED BY CHANCE!
Everything in the universe is in such a perfect balance, if the rate of oxygen, hydrogyn or some other gases would be smaller/larger it would be harder to live here in earth, think about it- the formation of the planets the distance to the sun- everything in such perfect balance.

[Razorofoccam]

Can a man ever stop God's plan from unfolding?
Would a (wise) man who respected God want too?
The words that you write are caused by God, as well as the words in the koran.
Kharakov

How can a wise man have found wisdom if it was all part of a plan?
He 'finds' nothing.
He is PART OF THE MACHINE..That is gods plan..DECEPTION.
He can do nothing but what he does..
He has no choice..no freedom..
His very life is as a pawn in a game.
WISDOM MEANS CHOICE..One is wise if he can predict possible outcomes and act on them..
There ARE NO POSSIBLE OUTCOMES if all is the plan of your god.
There is only ONE..

This is pure DETERMINISM.
The antithesis of conscious self aware understanding.
Of logic and reason...
Of Love.

A Deterministic philosophy . Sits in occams mind as just about as valid as solipsism.
Determinism says
That a self aware mind has as much choice as a rock.

Is that you?

Occam

Occam suggests that if it GOD TOLD US ..all happens and it can happen no other way..but by his plan
Humanity would go insane.

Occording to plan?

[Razorofoccam]

If it still does, then where is it?
Cabdirazzaq

Occam has asked this before..and you ignoed it...no mater

Where did SARS come from..?
Where did resistant TB come from?
Evolution can only be seen in action on our time scales in such fast reproducing life.

IT IS SEEN...Humans die of a TB that did not exist before we changed its enviroment.

All is life...it came from somewhere....that somewhere is its predecessors.
Evolution.

---------------
Also
We can MAKE NEW SPECIES.

Would you like a species of fly designed..without wings?
[Its no longer a 'FLY'..hehe]
Or that can only see in infra-red?

Pay enough cash..and it is yours...

You suggest god made it all,,,
But if we can make species...that is false.

You seem to have little idea of what we are able to do.
Or will soon be able to do..

Within 100 years,, nothing in the scale of life..
Humans will be able to create self aware consciousness.

NOW..is the time for you to say..
"but it would have no soul"

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

I

This is only one small system, then think about all other systems in the universe! IT COULD NOT, I SAID NOT BE FORMED BY CHANCE!.
Occam does not say it was...
He suggests that evolution follows laws...as it does...
And those laws are a product of direction

You say that direction is the god of your Quran..

Where is the evidence for THIS?

No-where occam can see...
Or apparently , the science you freely quote.
Science sees some of the fantastic detail...
BUT MAKES NO JUDGEMENT ON WHY THEY CAME TO BE...

Science is about processes and laws...
Not about WHY.

WHY..is pure philosophy...
Science knows not WHY there is gravity or evolution...
It exists only to find them.

YOU exist to find out why
And you gave it all up to accept a prepacked religion.
A prepacked way of thinking...


Occam

[Burbot]

...My point is, you have no evidence to support all this you have written,...
I have recently found God/Allah, it is the same God so lets not argue over that.... But my point is othere that "God's word" in the Qu'ran where is you evedence for pure Creationism...Life is a fantasitc thing, somehitng i can hardly comprehend, couldn't just ahve taken place over millions and millions of times of trial and error..

[MattInVegas]

I think it's all in the TIMING. Both ideas could be CORRECT. Just that creation happened WAY earlier than MANKIND. God created everything, THEN allowed it to evolve, and when a species intelligent enough emerges, he/she makes his/her presence known. Like it describes in Genesis.

[Razorofoccam]

I have recently found God/Allah, it is the same God so lets not argue over that.... But my point is othere that "God's word" in the Qu'ran where is you evedence for pure Creationism...Life is a fantasitc thing, somehitng i can hardly comprehend, couldn't just ahve taken place over millions and millions of times of trial and error..

Burbot

Occam also sees no evidence for creationism
Except in human books...

And asks [again] If god created the earth with a snap of the fingers.
[in 4004bc or whatever]
Why did it create earth to look like it WAS NOT created?

Look at what we have found using our Minds.
The first and simplest.
Verification for A 3 billion year history.

Geological weathering...

Occam

[WhisperingWoods]

Don't babble on about the old "it cannot just be chance! Earth is the only place. . . " BS. It IS chance that this planet is perfectly hospitable. But that is just the start. Chemicals and elements on the planet determine life too. "The chance that cells would do all this stuff--bla bla bla. .", they are living things, they react and change. They fit whatever situation that needs to be dealt with.

[WhisperingWoods]

Also.. Darwin only went back to religion in fear that people would look down upon him after his death. Who knows if he actually believed any of it. I'm assuming he saw the light (of logic).

[cabdirazzaq]

Cabdirazzaq

Occam has asked this before..and you ignoed it...no mater

Where did SARS come from..?
Where did resistant TB come from?
Evolution can only be seen in action on our time scales in such fast reproducing life.

IT IS SEEN...Humans die of a TB that did not exist before we changed its enviroment.

All is life...it came from somewhere....that somewhere is its predecessors.
Evolution.

---------------
Also
We can MAKE NEW SPECIES.

Would you like a species of fly designed..without wings?
[Its no longer a 'FLY'..hehe]
Or that can only see in infra-red?

Pay enough cash..and it is yours...

You suggest god made it all,,,
But if we can make species...that is false.

You seem to have little idea of what we are able to do.
Or will soon be able to do..

Within 100 years,, nothing in the scale of life..
Humans will be able to create self aware consciousness.

NOW..is the time for you to say..
"but it would have no soul"

OccamSARS is said to have come from the huge amount of increasing wild animals in Asia I believe which transferred their disease to human beings and it started to grow. SARS is not a "new" virus but it´s a different kind of one that already was known, ofcourse when we humans dump radiation, filth and all kinds of strange things in nature we would probably get some kind of disease or problem sooner or later. Allah(may he be exalted) gives people diseases and it is also he who cures people, if he wants to create a new disease right now he can do so. A simple answer to your questions
Where did SARS come from..?
Where did resistant TB come from?
(Interpretation of the meaning):

And your Lord creates whatsoever He wills and chooses, no choice have they. Glorified is Allah, and exalted above all that they associate.[Qasas 28.68]

Do you acually consider a fly without wings as evidence for evulotion? I could just capture a fly and then remove its wings with my fingers and it would still not show any proof for evolution, a mutation does not give good!

A mutation changes order but not the whole thing, for example it can happen that somebody is given another finger caused by a mutation but not a paw or a metal finger or something of that kind, none of you nor any of the most prominent evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins can answer my questions about the advanced structure and systems of the cell and how this could have evolved gradually, why is there so much silence around biochemistry and evolution, why do evolutionist fear this so much, is it because they can not explain it?



And Allah knows best

[Razorofoccam]

SARS is said to have come from the huge amount of increasing wild animals in Asia I believe which transferred their disease to human beings and it started to grow. SARS is not a "new" virus but it´s a different kind of one that already was known, ofcourse when we humans dump radiation, filth and all kinds of strange things in nature we would probably get some kind of disease or problem sooner or later. Allah(may he be exalted) gives people diseases and it is also he who cures people, if he wants to create a new disease right now he can do so. A simple answer to your questions
Where did SARS come from..?
Where did resistant TB come from?
(Interpretation of the meaning):

And your Lord creates whatsoever He wills and chooses, no choice have they. Glorified is Allah, and exalted above all that they associate.[Qasas 28.68]

Do you acually consider a fly without wings as evidence for evulotion? I could just capture a fly and then remove its wings with my fingers and it would still not show any proof for evolution, a mutation does not give good!

A mutation changes order but not the whole thing, for example it can happen that somebody is given another finger caused by a mutation but not a paw or a metal finger or something of that kind, none of you nor any of the most prominent evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins can answer my questions about the advanced structure and systems of the cell and how this could have evolved gradually, why is there so much silence around biochemistry and evolution, why do evolutionist fear this so much, is it because they can not explain it?

And Allah knows best
Cabdirazzaq

How do you know SARS is not a new virus?
If it was in animals all along...Why did it wait 6000 years to manifest?
[according to creationist timescales]

You say allah gives people deseases......... and cures them
WHY?

Not a fly without wings...
A species of fly without wings..
One that reproduces fly's without wings...
A new species.

And you did not answer the question about resistant TB.
It is an example of evolution few are brave enough to argue with
As you were not..

You speak of mutations.. occam does not..His examples are SPECIES.

You suggest there is some conspiracy of silence in evolutionary biology.
Occam sees no such thing..
Even if all humans stood up and shouted...evolution is false...
Occam would still believe the evidence..first...
And the words of humans ....LAST
There is much evidence...

Directly percievable to occam...[empirical]

And that evidence says this planet is OLD.
Billions of years.

Occam sees NO EVIDENCE of creationism....
Our world has ALL the phenomena of a world that has aged over thousands of millions of years.
Yet you say it was created....
IF it was created..it was created to look like it was not created...

Does god play games with us?
There is no reason to create a world to look like [to reason] one that was not created
Unless god decieves us in a POOR fashion...He thinks us so stupid as to believe a book..Over believing what we see in reality.

The god you believe in, ALLAH and the god of christianity...THE SAME GOD.
Speak only through books.
IT seems....

'Lord of the rings' is a book...
Does it speak truth?
As much as your book does...Yes.
Both have the SAME empirical grounding.

Thus..is not your religion a fantasy?

Occam

[Burbot]

'Lord of the rings' is a book...
Does it speak truth?
As much as your book does...Yes.
Both have the SAME empirical grounding.

Touche my friend...touche...

[gnrm23]

god speaking through books...
the "revealed" religions...
the prophet muhammed described the jews and the christians as being "people of the book" and wished for his people (children of the patriarch abraham (abram, ibrahim) by hagar through ishmael (as opposed to the hebrews, who were children of abraham through sarah (sarai) through israel))... and though an illiterate, his recitation (al quran means "the recitation") of his experiences with god's messenger angel gave his people a book about the doings of the one god...

monotheistic religions, especially the abrahamic family, often will insist more fervently than other human spritual traditions that their sacred scriptures are (in addition for being general guides on how to be human) factual & historical in every detail...
& "if we're right, then you're wrong; & if you ain't with us, then you're against us: & if you're against us, then you're against god: & if you're against god, then - well, you deserve what ever's comin' to you, you filthy non-believer you!"

& the next thing you know --- wars of conquest & extermination:
the jews taking over "the promised land" (canaan, with joshua at the front & the walls came tumblin' down;
christians consolidating the remnants of the decaying roman empire & eliminating heretics & coming up with great ideas like schisms, holy inquisitions, crusades, pogroms, fratricidal religious wars, & missionaries;
muslims with forced conversions in many newly conquered lands (and they conquer & spread their message from iberia & morocco across africa & eastern europe & the middle east & much of asia clear out to indonesia) & jihads & janissaries...

~
~
~
anyways, "fundamentalists" in all 3 traditions can find reason in their scriptures to believe that the world was recently made, pretty much "as is"...
but many more within each tradition will admit that the world is very old, and that things have changed a great deal over thousands of millions of years... but they still see the hand of god guiding the development of life towards bring forth one "made in the likeness of god" - that is, mankind...

and here we are...

[POPthree13]

Cabdirazzaq- I find it interesting that you suggest I have no proof. Yet you offer no proof.


I undertsand well the system you outlined as I have spent much time studying biology and human anatomy. The first things you are taught in these classes is the process of evolution. It is impossible to study life without understanding this. Yes, the system is complex, this does not necessitate a design.

So you conveniently lump all of our orgins into apes and men. This is arbitrary, you say there is nothing in the 'middle'. They are ALL in the middle. Just as you are in the middle - between your parents and your children.

There simply isn't enough room on Hip-Forums server to hold all of the evidence science has found for evolution. Every avenue of biological study, genetics, epidemiology, anthropology, palaentology, archaeology has come to the same conclusion and there are libraries and libraries full of evidence supporting this process. I guess your one book recants all of this evidence.

Yes, Darwin had an insufficient understanding of the cell. Your creation authors had NO understanding of the cell. They didn't even know it existed. Yet you suggest THEY are right, and he was worng? He didn't come up with evolution studying a cell he first came up with it watching the variety of doves which lived in different places in europe. His theories became more concrete when he visited galapagos islands. His theory needs no cellular understanding it is about the changes organisms go through over thousands of years of reproduction and little more.

[cabdirazzaq]

Cabdirazzaq

How do you know SARS is not a new virus?
If it was in animals all along...Why did it wait 6000 years to manifest?
[according to creationist timescales]

You say allah gives people deseases......... and cures them
WHY?

Not a fly without wings...
A species of fly without wings..
One that reproduces fly's without wings...
A new species.

And you did not answer the question about resistant TB.
It is an example of evolution few are brave enough to argue with
As you were not..

You speak of mutations.. occam does not..His examples are SPECIES.

You suggest there is some conspiracy of silence in evolutionary biology.
Occam sees no such thing..
Even if all humans stood up and shouted...evolution is false...
Occam would still believe the evidence..first...
And the words of humans ....LAST
There is much evidence...

Directly percievable to occam...[empirical]

And that evidence says this planet is OLD.
Billions of years.

Occam sees NO EVIDENCE of creationism....
Our world has ALL the phenomena of a world that has aged over thousands of millions of years.
Yet you say it was created....
IF it was created..it was created to look like it was not created...

Does god play games with us?
There is no reason to create a world to look like [to reason] one that was not created
Unless god decieves us in a POOR fashion...He thinks us so stupid as to believe a book..Over believing what we see in reality.

The god you believe in, ALLAH and the god of christianity...THE SAME GOD.
Speak only through books.
IT seems....

'Lord of the rings' is a book...
Does it speak truth?
As much as your book does...Yes.
Both have the SAME empirical grounding.

Thus..is not your religion a fantasy?

OccamSARS as described by researchers as a virus from the family of coronaviruses, if this is incorrect then I refer to the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI). Allah(may he be exalted) gives people diseases and cures them, if he wants to test some one he can make him/her illl and if he wants to punish someone for a unlawfull act which this person did he could strike him with a disease such as AIDS which didn´t exist before people started indulging in fornication and such disgusting immoral acts. The prophet(peace be and blessing of Allah be upon him) said in a hadeeth:
Whenever sexual permissiveness spreads among the people until it becomes declared, infections and killing diseases, as well as illnesses not previously found in their ancestors will spread among them" (Sunan Ibn Majah)

As stated above, new foundings of diseases does not contradict against my religion so I believe I do not need to answer your question about TB.
Who cares if you have species of flies without wings, it hasn´t improved anything has it? We already know the bad affects that mutations can cause but where are all the good stuff? Stop assuming that I believe that the world is 6000 years old, I can not find anything in my religion to support this! If you want the truth, I do not know how old the earth is and it is nothing important for me to think about anyway. The evidence for creationism is founded everywhere in nature and in our selves. Science means that you should have some kinds of evidence to support your theory while the theory of evolution is lacking a great deal of the evidence which it needs. How can this theory explain how our complex immune system could have evolved or the blood clotting system? A immune system which is lacking of any of its dussin parts is harmfull against us hence it couldn´t have evolved in small steps the same with the blood clotting system. Some parts must build the fibrin and start the clotting while others activate others and some slice other parts and other parts give energy and some parts stop the cutting so it doesnt harm us and so on, this must be done fast and in perfect order so as to save us from loosing all of our blood, does not this show you design? There has been a Creator which has degined all this, every thing just screams design just like when we look at a airplane or a car for instance. How can this theory explain how all these million of animals with all their millions of functions have evolved from once cell? If we were to say they did, then tell me where they got their instict from? How does a fish find it´s way from one part of the world to another, by smelling it´s way? - It's a little far fetched for a fish to smell it´s way from the Mexican gulf to the coast here in Gothenburg or how some animals plan a head like the beaver, could evolution have given these animals, compassion, love and anger? How and why did we evolop huge brains? How can DNA evolve when it need protein and how can protein evolve when it needs DNA? How can you expect Rna to come first when it is said to function as a blue print, how can advanced life appear on earth by chance when it is something that can´t be accomplised in the best laboratories man has builded? How can the tribolite which researcher claim existed among the first living animals have such an extremly advanced eye struture?

http://www.harunyahya.com/images_books/images_refuted/63.jpgHarun Yahya

And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

And Allah knows best

[Razorofoccam]

SARS as described by researchers as a virus from the family of coronaviruses, if this is incorrect then I refer to the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI). Allah(may he be exalted) gives people diseases and cures them, if he wants to test some one he can make him/her illl and if he wants to punish someone for a unlawfull act which this person did he could strike him with a disease such as AIDS which didn´t exist before people started indulging in fornication and such disgusting immoral acts. The prophet(peace be and blessing of Allah be upon him) said in a hadeeth:
Whenever sexual permissiveness spreads among the people until it becomes declared, infections and killing diseases, as well as illnesses not previously found in their ancestors will spread among them" (Sunan Ibn Majah)

As stated above, new foundings of diseases does not contradict against my religion so I believe I do not need to answer your question about TB.
Who cares if you have species of flies without wings, it hasn´t improved anything has it? We already know the bad affects that mutations can cause but where are all the good stuff? Stop assuming that I believe that the world is 6000 years old, I can not find anything in my religion to support this! If you want the truth, I do not know how old the earth is and it is nothing important for me to think about anyway. The evidence for creationism is founded everywhere in nature and in our selves. Science means that you should have some kinds of evidence to support your theory while the theory of evolution is lacking a great deal of the evidence which it needs. How can this theory explain how our complex immune system could have evolved or the blood clotting system? A immune system which is lacking of any of its dussin parts is harmfull against us hence it couldn´t have evolved in small steps the same with the blood clotting system. Some parts must build the fibrin and start the clotting while others activate others and some slice other parts and other parts give energy and some parts stop the cutting so it doesnt harm us and so on, this must be done fast and in perfect order so as to save us from loosing all of our blood, does not this show you design? There has been a Creator which has degined all this, every thing just screams design just like when we look at a airplane or a car for instance. How can this theory explain how all these million of animals with all their millions of functions have evolved from once cell? If we were to say they did, then tell me where they got their instict from? How does a fish find it´s way from one part of the world to another, by smelling it´s way? - It's a little far fetched for a fish to smell it´s way from the Mexican gulf to the coast here in Gothenburg or how some animals plan a head like the beaver, could evolution have given these animals, compassion, love and anger? How and why did we evolop huge brains? How can DNA evolve when it need protein and how can protein evolve when it needs DNA? How can you expect Rna to come first when it is said to function as a blue print, how can advanced life appear on earth by chance when it is something that can´t be accomplised in the best laboratories man has builded? How can the tribolite which researcher claim existed among the first living animals have such an extremly advanced eye struture?


And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

And Allah knows best

Cabdirazzaq

If you will not answer occams questions on resistant TB
You answer NO questions...

All your statements mean nothing if you cannot resolve this one.
It is AN example of functional evolution.

ONE THAT EXISTS..As a realworld phenomena...
As apposed to your book
Which exists as a book. And no more.

Answer the question..Occam cannot be converted to you cult.
[For your religion is a CULT of the world monothiesm.]
Ever..Unless your Allah gets in his face...

Occam only cares if you are able to offer an explanation for resistant TB.
And how it came to be...
Evolution and enviromental adaption explains it...
YOU ,,and your prepacked religion..do not.
Religion has no method...it is belief in a BOOK.
And your book does not mention the appearance of new species.
Thus it expalins nothing on this issue

How does allah know best?..Because you say he does.
The human Einstein ..Albert..Is in the real world of our understanding
A being of far greater importance than your god...
He gave us understanding.

Your god gives us conflict and war..As does the christian god...
[but not jesus,, the variant.While mohammed was a warrior]
As does just about every stupid human idea of god...

You talk as if your god is right here..
But occam sees it not...
Show it to occam and he will believe...

You cannot?
WHAT A SURPRISE.

Show occam your god...And he will believe EVERY WORD YOU SAY

All you have to do...is present the phenomena...
An easy thing..if it exists..
If it does not...

Then your belief,,is just that,,belief....opinion.

Occam

[Sera Michele]

Cabdirazzaq- I find it interesting that you suggest I have no proof. Yet you offer no proof.


I undertsand well the system you outlined as I have spent much time studying biology and human anatomy. The first things you are taught in these classes is the process of evolution. It is impossible to study life without understanding this. Yes, the system is complex, this does not necessitate a design.

So you conveniently lump all of our orgins into apes and men. This is arbitrary, you say there is nothing in the 'middle'. They are ALL in the middle. Just as you are in the middle - between your parents and your children.

There simply isn't enough room on Hip-Forums server to hold all of the evidence science has found for evolution. Every avenue of biological study, genetics, epidemiology, anthropology, palaentology, archaeology has come to the same conclusion and there are libraries and libraries full of evidence supporting this process. I guess your one book recants all of this evidence.

Yes, Darwin had an insufficient understanding of the cell. Your creation authors had NO understanding of the cell. They didn't even know it existed. Yet you suggest THEY are right, and he was worng? He didn't come up with evolution studying a cell he first came up with it watching the variety of doves which lived in different places in europe. His theories became more concrete when he visited galapagos islands. His theory needs no cellular understanding it is about the changes organisms go through over thousands of years of reproduction and little more.
Very well said.

[cabdirazzaq]

Cabdirazzaq

If you will not answer occams questions on resistant TB
You answer NO questions...

All your statements mean nothing if you cannot resolve this one.
It is AN example of functional evolution.

ONE THAT EXISTS..As a realworld phenomena...
As apposed to your book
Which exists as a book. And no more.

Answer the question..Occam cannot be converted to you cult.
[For your religion is a CULT of the world monothiesm.]
Ever..Unless your Allah gets in his face...

Occam only cares if you are able to offer an explanation for resistant TB.
And how it came to be...
Evolution and enviromental adaption explains it...
YOU ,,and your prepacked religion..do not.
Religion has no method...it is belief in a BOOK.
And your book does not mention the appearance of new species.
Thus it expalins nothing on this issue

How does allah know best?..Because you say he does.
The human Einstein ..Albert..Is in the real world of our understanding
A being of far greater importance than your god...
He gave us understanding.

Your god gives us conflict and war..As does the christian god...
[but not jesus,, the variant.While mohammed was a warrior]
As does just about every stupid human idea of god...

You talk as if your god is right here..
But occam sees it not...
Show it to occam and he will believe...

You cannot?
WHAT A SURPRISE.

Show occam your god...And he will believe EVERY WORD YOU SAY

All you have to do...is present the phenomena...
An easy thing..if it exists..
If it does not...

Then your belief,,is just that,,belief....opinion.

Occam
TB is very much connected to AIDS and becomes alot worse when they are combined and as I said before Aids and such diseases steps in when people commit these unlawfull actions as was described in the hadith of the prophet(peace and blessing of Allah be upon him). I have answered this question, Allah(may he be exalted) gives diseases if this happens by way of evolution I can not say no to that nor can I affirm it, but even though you might be able to try to convince me that TB could have evolved you would never succeed in convincing me that you and I, the whole world was from a result of chance! Now could this TB disease evolve to a immune system, photo syntesis and a digesting system if we would give it a while?

All your statements mean nothing if you cannot resolve this one.
It is AN example of functional evolution.

You blame me for not explaining one thing even though I think I have explained it while you your self ignore most of what I´ve said? Science have a rule which is quite known, it's called publish or perish, either you publish evidence or you perish and sense no evolutionist has ever tried to explain with details how all the biochemical systems could have arosen then this theory is bound to perish!!!

Occam only cares if you are able to offer an explanation for resistant TB.
And how it came to be...
Evolution and enviromental adaption explains it...
YOU ,,and your prepacked religion..do not.

The prophet(peace be and blessing of Allah be upon him) said in a hadeeth:
Whenever sexual permissiveness spreads among the people until it becomes declared, infections and killing diseases, as well as illnesses not previously found in their ancestors will spread among them" (Sunan Ibn Majah)

HIV is close attached to TB and if HIV would decrease then TB would probably also stop increasing.

Your god gives us conflict and war..As does the christian god...
[but not jesus,, the variant.While mohammed was a warrior]
As does just about every stupid human idea of god...

Darwinism gave a (indirect) start for Materalism, Facism and Communism wherupon alot wars have been faught against people from different race just because Darwin though people like my self where as low as baboons and monkeys to the point in which they have evolved while the lord has said(interpretation of the meaning):

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). [Hujurat 49.13]

You talk as if your god is right here..
But occam sees it not...
Show it to occam and he will believe...

Show me your reason, you sense! Show me it, what you can't? Well then theres no point in argumenting with you sense you can't prove to me that you have a common sense...
Do you love your mother? Then show me this, or let me hear it, or let me feel it or let me taste it! What you can't? Well then you don't love your mother you awfull thing, hates his own mother...
Will you die some day occam, yes ofcourse you will. How do you know this, by researcher or have you noticed people dying so you counted out that you also will die some day, have you tasted/felt/heard/smelled or seen 'death', no yet you are sure you are going to die, interesting indeed.

I wont be around for a 10 days starting from tomorrow inshallah(if Allah wants to) because we have reached the last ten days of Ramadan and the prophet(peace and blessing of Allah) use to stay inside the mosque for 10 days(20 the year he died) so I want to do this also. Finally these are some verses with which I'm urging you to leave these bogus non scientific bogus theory which you are following(darwinism)and these verses are so dear to me in words which are hard to describe(interpretation of the meaning)

There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

Allah is the Wali (Protector or Guardian) of those who believe. He brings them out from darknesses into light. But as for those who disbelieve, their Awliya' (supporters and helpers) are Taghut (false deities and false leaders), they bring them out from light into darknesses. Those are the dwellers of the Fire, and they will abide therein forever. [Baqarah 2.256-257]

http://english.islamway.com/bindex.php?section=flashes&cat=3

[POPthree13]

cab-
Well this is going nowhere fast. You simply can't refute a single statement on here with a single scientific fact. I could read to you from some ancient texts too, but it will prove no point.

Please take the ANNOYING posts to the Islamis threads....

Either way I will be ignoring you from now on.

[Burbot]

YOU ,,and your prepacked religion..do not.
Religion has no method...it is belief in a BOOK.

acctually here is a definition of religion
re·li·gion
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion


...Religions have nothing to do with books, just teachings...I can accept that others have differing views of where we came from in the world, but i cannot accept ignorance and arrogance...both displayed by cab--- and occam....that is all i have to say about that...

[blankpagedreamer]

Darwin hasn't "lied" to us, he just did not have sufficient technology to support his claims. His theory is interesting and he did bring forth a very sound argument toward the theory of evolution, but it is just that, a THEORY. Natural selection, aids in survival, it is not, as we are already aware, an optimizing process, it is purely naturalistic, unconscious and undetermined. It seemed logical back in the days of Darwin, considering one either believed in theology or science, this was the scientific explanation for the existence of the earth's species' and the workings of the world. It did, however, lack the empirical evidence needed to back up his efforts. For example the fossils specifically observed from over 600 million years ago. With modern advances in science, scientists have noted that there have been no records of previously existing lifeforms, which somehow led people to believe in a spontaneous phenomena. Also, another strong point in refutting the theory of evolution, is that of irreducable complexity. Michael Behe, a famous biochemist, who dwindled in philosophy, brought forth the objection of Darwin's theory with irreducable complexity. He analogizes it with a complex design such as the eye, and says that there is no possible way that such an intricate mechanism could have evolved from a lesser state. Meaning that, the eye has specific parts that allow it to function just perfectly, if some of those parts are altered or weakened the eye will not work accordingly. This suggests that there must have been more aspects concerning the 'design' of natural things, than simply evolution. And, Darwin has stated himself that: (Origin of Species)
"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."
The eye could not have been formed by what Darwin is claiming in his theory (that all things can be formed progressively, in different states of evolution, for better means of survival.) And Behe argues that Darwin has not compensated or explained how natural selection could work for complexities such as the eye, or other such complex structures. Darwin, ONLY explained evolution at a macro level...which is why his theory goes unsupported, to explain evolution microscopically (perhaps due to lack of contemporary scientific advances we now have access to). Which is why I would have to agree with Michael Behe and his hypothesis toward irreducable complexity, considering how he has used scientific evidence to rule out Darwin's theory. Which is why Darwin's specific theory absolutely fails...other such theories of evolution exist, although they seem weak and discerning. Some would argue that natural or theological explanations or phenomena are what has caused the existence of beings, but that is for a different thread..

[hailtothekingbaby]

And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

And Allah knows best
This same quote was used by the murderer of notorious column-writer Theo van Gogh ( who, in my opinion, used only valid objections against the Islamic religion, though I don't agree with the common all-immigrants-have-to-leave-the-country atmosphere that usually surrounds criticism aimed at the Islam and by the way christians are / used to be just as bad ) but we'll keep that out of this thread ) here in Holland a few days ago to justify the homicide he had comitted. I marvel at how people can be so close-minded and downright stupid to believe in any religion other people made up for them.

Though Darwin's theory isn't a proven fact, it is indeed very likely to be true. The earliest humanoids appear to have "developed" in the Olduvai-gorge in western Africa around three million years ago, from where they slowly spread around the world, adapting to their surroundings both culturally and genetically. The genetic part of this adaptation is evolution. There is plenty of archaeologic evidence for this to convince me of the truth of Darwin's statements. I do not expect you to be, so I'll give a modern anthropologic example:

When you compare native Africans with Inuit ( "Eskimos" ) in the most northern regions of the earth, you will see that whereas the Africans are mostly long and thin ( obviously not referring to pygmies ) and the Inuit are short and roundish. This is a genetic adaptation the the climate of their respective "habitats": tall, thin people have much more body area compared to volume, this is for being able to quickly lose thier surplus of body heat in the hot climate of Africa. Inuits have much more volume and less area so they can keep themselves from losing too much body heat to the Arctic cold. Such a big difference, and yet both have originated from the same "forefather".

This is clearly a sign that people under different circumstances will genetically adapt ( = evolve ) in different ways.

I guess we'll have to see what things look like in another three million years...

[Sebbi]

I would like to add


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.
Ponder Stibbons (Of the Unseen University of Anhk Morpork) came up with 2 rules for the emergance of life on earth (roundworld project).

1. It turns up wherever it can.
2. It turns up wherever it can't.

Jack Cohen explains:

"The idea that life could be self starting is still contraversial to many people. Nevertheless, it turns out that finding plausible roues to life is easy. There must be at least thirty of them. It's hard to decide which, if any, was the actual route taken, because later life forms destroyed all evidence. This may not matter much: if life hadn't taken the route it did, it could have easily taken one of the others, or one of the hundered we haven't thought of yet."

The next thing Cohen explains is about 3 or 4 possible routes it could have taken.

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.
Termites build their nests by something called collective intelligence. This means they have a simple rule but because there are so many of the fuckers this rule manifests to be something pretty amazing.

The rule for building termites nests is this:

If you smell that another Termite has been here, stick a pellet here.

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.
Your genes have to move damn fast for the body to stay the same. This is because the environment just moves so quickly.

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)
It isn't being left alone. It has heat from the sun.

Blessings

Sebbi

[Joe Cool]

ever notice how people who beleive in creationism look really unevolved?

hahaha i cant remember who said it but its awesome

[J_Lazarus]

Darwin hasn't "lied" to us, he just did not have sufficient technology to support his claims. His theory is interesting and he did bring forth a very sound argument toward the theory of evolution, but it is just that, a THEORY. Natural selection, aids in survival, it is not, as we are already aware, an optimizing process, it is purely naturalistic, unconscious and undetermined. It seemed logical back in the days of Darwin, considering one either believed in theology or science, this was the scientific explanation for the existence of the earth's species' and the workings of the world. It did, however, lack the empirical evidence needed to back up his efforts. For example the fossils specifically observed from over 600 million years ago. With modern advances in science, scientists have noted that there have been no records of previously existing lifeforms, which somehow led people to believe in a spontaneous phenomena. Also, another strong point in refutting the theory of evolution, is that of irreducable complexity. Michael Behe, a famous biochemist, who dwindled in philosophy, brought forth the objection of Darwin's theory with irreducable complexity. He analogizes it with a complex design such as the eye, and says that there is no possible way that such an intricate mechanism could have evolved from a lesser state. Meaning that, the eye has specific parts that allow it to function just perfectly, if some of those parts are altered or weakened the eye will not work accordingly. This suggests that there must have been more aspects concerning the 'design' of natural things, than simply evolution. And, Darwin has stated himself that: (Origin of Species)
"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."
The eye could not have been formed by what Darwin is claiming in his theory (that all things can be formed progressively, in different states of evolution, for better means of survival.) And Behe argues that Darwin has not compensated or explained how natural selection could work for complexities such as the eye, or other such complex structures. Darwin, ONLY explained evolution at a macro level...which is why his theory goes unsupported, to explain evolution microscopically (perhaps due to lack of contemporary scientific advances we now have access to). Which is why I would have to agree with Michael Behe and his hypothesis toward irreducable complexity, considering how he has used scientific evidence to rule out Darwin's theory. Which is why Darwin's specific theory absolutely fails...other such theories of evolution exist, although they seem weak and discerning. Some would argue that natural or theological explanations or phenomena are what has caused the existence of beings, but that is for a different thread.. Well your understanding of what a "scientific theory" is, is flawed. To say, "it's just a theory" misunderstands what the term itself means - as to use the term "theory" in science means something quite different than how we define the term in common usage. A scientific theory may be a theory and a fact both simultaneously, as a theory in science is something that has been rigorously tested, examined, critiqued, and reviewed by peers. Most consider the theory of evolution a fact today, just as scientists consider the theory of plate tectonics a fact.

And we already have graphs on the evolution of the eye. Read Richard Dawkins', "The Blind Watchmaker". And really to say that a slight alteration would make the eye worthless doesn't provide any real criticism of evolution, as the long line of nature's failures in producing workable senses and adapted species speaks for itself.

- Laz

[Razorofoccam]

cabdirazzaq

Well my friend

You believe a thing...for your reasons...
Occam believes your thing is not of reason.
It is of desire...

You believe what you do...
Not through method.
But through desire to believe it....

You WANT it to be true...
And thus..to you.
It is.

What occam calls truth..can be shown to any who wish to see it.
And all will agree on it...

Agreement is the key....
We agree on what is truth.
But that IS NOT TRUTH..
It is only agreement on a definition.

Can you show occam your god?

No. we cannot agree..just like many others.
Could this be because there is NOTHING to agree ON.
Or, could it be we just cant see such a thing..your god.. through our own deficiency.

Occam knows not.
That is why he is an agnostic...

He knows not.
And fears not, that knowing.,

[sooty_the_kat]

wow. this has got to be some kind of joke thread because i don't think i have ever read anything so ridiculously ignorant. i think a lot of people have refuted what was originally said but i thought id say some stuff anyway.

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] etc etc blah blah blah

and did YOU know that the basic chemical unit cells that make up life can be made here on earth in a totally natural environment with no human assistance??


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"

wtf are you talking about, evolution does not occur over 50 years you imbicile, it take thousands and thousands of years you will NOT witness it in it your life time i can assure you.


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.

ok hold up. do you actually know anything at all about lucy? didnt think so. lucy was not "an ape who walked upwards", she had a distinctively different shaped spine which allowed her to move like a human, and there were other features of her skull which were more like a human than an ape. and that thing about the turtles and bees - not all animals need to evolve at the same rate, cockroaches have been around since dinosaurs, crocodiles have not evolved much in comparison to other animals, the fact that they didnt doesnt prove evolution wrong.

your whole argument is void and worth shit.

[cabdirazzaq]

The idea that Lucy walked like a human was refuted by Fred Spoor and his teamates when they proved through making an ear analysis and comparing this to other apes that Lucys balance system was just as ordinary as other apes according to these findings. This caused the well known french science magazine -Science et Vie- to issue a cover story of Lucy with the headline Adeu Lucy- "Goodbye lucy".

[sooty_the_kat]

her ears have noting to do with her spine and hip placement in relation to her leg joints

[Burbot]

The idea that Lucy walked like a human was refuted by Fred Spoor and his teamates when they proved through making an ear analysis and comparing this to other apes that Lucys balance system was just as ordinary as other apes according to these findings. This caused the well known french science magazine -Science et Vie- to issue a cover story of Lucy with the headline Adeu Lucy- "Goodbye lucy".

Aye, but were the findings of Galileo Galilei not also refuted by the chrurch...?

[cabdirazzaq]

http://www.utmem.edu/otolaryngology/Patients&Public/Ear&BalanceCenter/lwf0.JPG

The balance system has been found to rest in the inner ear and therefor is different depending on if you are a human or an other animals which walks on 4 feet, this is learned in basic biology[perhaps you were day dreaming while the teacher was speaking, couldn't blame you, I my self find my self to dream my self out from the rat-hole called school and in to the mosk]

Burbot, there is alot more difference between the church when they refuted the idea that the earth was round, I'm presenting evidence for you just as demanded, lucy is forgotten...

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/152.jpg

[cabdirazzaq]

wow. this has got to be some kind of joke thread because i don't think i have ever read anything so ridiculously ignorant. i think a lot of people have refuted what was originally said but i thought id say some stuff anyway.


[quote]and did YOU know that the basic chemical unit cells that make up life can be made here on earth in a totally natural environment with no human assistance??It takes a crew of scientist, labaratories and expensive equipment to make easy chemical units, It is very exhausting for a scientist crew to make a small chain of DNA but at the same time you tell us it could be done in an enviroment million years ago that concisted(refering to scientists) of alot of oxygen, enough to destroy these fairy tale units that came by them self(if there was no oxygen then there could not have existed an ozon layer making it easy for raditon from space to destroy these chemical units.)
What evolved first, the hen or the egg, DNA or protein? DNA is composed of protein but at the same times gives the order of what protein is to be built.


wtf are you talking about, evolution does not occur over 50 years you imbicile, it take thousands and thousands of years you will NOT witness it in it your life time i can assure you.There are millions of species living on earth, the earth has existed in thousands of years, why do we not see even a small change in any of these species.

How come all these animal fossils that are being found look exactly as their counterpart living today, see for you self.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/82.jpg The right: A turtle said to be 110 million years old.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/81.jpgEstimated to be 50 million years old.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/122.jpgSaid to be 50 million year old bat founded in the US, identic to the living ones today.http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/fish1.jpg
Fossil fish called Birkenia from Scotland. This creature, estimated to be some 420 million years old, is about 4 cm. long.Fossil shark of the Stethacanthus genus, some 330 million years old according to scientists.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/res/fish2.jpg
Estimated 110-million-year-old fossil fish from the Santana fossil bed in Brazil.Group of fossil fish from the Mesozoic Age.

Fossil fish estimated 360 million years old from the Devonian Age. Called Osteolepis panderi, it is about 20 cm. long and resembles present-day fish.

not all animals need to evolve at the same rate,
But where are the ones that evolved sense all fossils that are being found are like those who live now or exstint? Darwin blamed lack of fossils and that this would be answered in the future, now we have a rich amount of fossils

[atropine]

over time a species may evolve, but that doesnt mean that the entire specie has to. species can branch into different forms through evolution, although an animal could last that long without evolving.

[thumontico]

cabdirazzaq you do not understand evolutionary theory.

a species will only change significantly if the environment changes, or the species migrates to another environment. The species will only change if a mutation occurs making the species better suited to the environment.

so first, realizing I doubt the validity of the examples you gave, i tell you that the bat that has changed very little in 50 million years has done so because it is the best variant of the species in that particular environment. And it is not identical, by the way, it would undoubtably vary in its DNA as something must do through the creation process itself.

BUT if you disreguard all of that that you can realize that God is real and there is an afterlife and you dont have to think because god will do it for you and you can be in bliss. Either way your life will be unconsquential whether you believe it or not.

[J_Lazarus]

wow. this has got to be some kind of joke thread because i don't think i have ever read anything so ridiculously ignorant. i think a lot of people have refuted what was originally said but i thought id say some stuff anyway.

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] etc etc blah blah blah

and did YOU know that the basic chemical unit cells that make up life can be made here on earth in a totally natural environment with no human assistance??


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"

wtf are you talking about, evolution does not occur over 50 years you imbicile, it take thousands and thousands of years you will NOT witness it in it your life time i can assure you.


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.

ok hold up. do you actually know anything at all about lucy? didnt think so. lucy was not "an ape who walked upwards", she had a distinctively different shaped spine which allowed her to move like a human, and there were other features of her skull which were more like a human than an ape. and that thing about the turtles and bees - not all animals need to evolve at the same rate, cockroaches have been around since dinosaurs, crocodiles have not evolved much in comparison to other animals, the fact that they didnt doesnt prove evolution wrong.

your whole argument is void and worth shit. Excellent post.

- Laz

[Razorofoccam]

cabdirazzaq

Please explain why evolution cannot be the way god creates new species.

Who are we to say or undestand the process of such creation...

If evolution IS the way your god creates..then you are saying that method is a lie..Without any justification or evidence,,even in HIS book..

Occam

[thumontico]

To me if I wanted to stick to my belief that God created all of existence, I would make the argument that he set up the initial conditions for evolution.

[cabdirazzaq]

cabdirazzaq

Please explain why evolution cannot be the way god creates new species.

Who are we to say or undestand the process of such creation...

If evolution IS the way your god creates..then you are saying that method is a lie..Without any justification or evidence,,even in HIS book..

Occam
Simply because it goes against our(muslims, christians and jews) believes that Adam(peace be upon him) was the first man ever to walk this earth.
Can I prove this I just wrote, hardly think so but at the other hand I'm not forcing you in to something you don't want to believe in. As for me, I have no doubt that Allah(may he be exalted) exists just as I'm sure that I'm sitting here just now writing this short reply.

[lostblackdog]

Dude, do you know that Da Vinci was NOT a Christian? Da Vinci was a blatant and obvious Goddess worshiper... and probably gay to boot, not that it should really matter in the final evaluation of such a talented person. Da Vinci worked for the Church, but read the Da Vinci Code and look at some of the actual works as they exist and as they are talked about in the book. I don't really believe that book holds the complete truth, but there is substantial support that Da Vinci was most certainly not a Christian.

As far as Adam being the first man on earth, even the Hebrew scriptures themselves differ on the creation story. We are given two seperate accounts of the creation of ONE earth. Now then, until I see another earth, I'm going to have to discount the creation myth. Do you believe that the minor details of creation matter so much in your faith, or is it more the purpose and meaning behind the creation? Whether we evolved (which seems to be closer to the truth) or if we were created (which takes extreme faith, and I commend you for upholding your beliefs), does it really matter? Are we not here today no matter what? Do the stories of our faiths matter all that much, especially when we can see now that most of them were more than likely false, or is it the meaning BEYOND the stories that make us who were are? If you believe in the old scriptures of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, then you also know that the true "believer" is the one who doesn't fret over the ritualistic and minor details of faith, rather the true "believer" is the one who strives to understand the purpose beyond such things. In other words, perhaps it is time to put down the bitterness of your arguement against everyone, and maybe it's time to strive to understand the meaning that your faith has in YOUR life. The stories were there just like we have stories of the stork and of angels bringing down babies to their parents... we grow up and believe that, but as we grow and change... we learn differently... not better or worse, but differently.

Just because Darwin thought differently, that doesn't make him better, that makes him different from what many people accepted as the truth. Now it seems the tides have turned, and people like yourself are the minority, and to your credit, it takes balls to stand up for your beliefs in such a way. Does that make you right or make your understanding closer to the truth as we have seen it time and time again in nature? Not really. We have way more evidence of the theory of evolution, and that makes it more relative to the mainstream populus than the theory of creation... something of which we hardly have any tangible and universal evidence of other than stories that have been shown to be wrong. Does that make the stories worthless? Not at all... they are beautiful stories that can still be incorporated into a belief system, but that system isn't for you to abuse and claim to know the truth with. What you believe is what you believe, and what I believe is what I believe. Darwin wasn't wrong, nor what he right. As far as the early Hebrews.... they were probably further from the truth than Darwin. As for the entire Bible alone, it's more than likely so corrupted from it's original text, it's not even funny... kind of like it's message has been as well. Does that make it the authority of truth, justice, and life? No. Does that make Darwin the Truth? No. We still don't know it, and until we do... all we have are educated guesses.

Darwin never proved anything, he just hasn't been falsified yet... If you really want to take on the theory of evolution, let me challenge you to falsify his theory through a means that we can all understand. My real hope is that in your search to disprove Darwin, you'll realize that the struggle is not with Darwin, rather it's within yourself... and that will be the greater obstacle to overcome, I believe.

[Razorofoccam]

To me if I wanted to stick to my belief that God created all of existence, I would make the argument that he set up the initial conditions for evolution.
Thumontico

This is the understanding occam has.
It fits with observation and is the simplest answer...

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Simply because it goes against our(muslims, christians and jews) believes that Adam(peace be upon him) was the first man ever to walk this earth.
Can I prove this I just wrote, hardly think so but at the other hand I'm not forcing you in to something you don't want to believe in. As for me, I have no doubt that Allah(may he be exalted) exists just as I'm sure that I'm sitting here just now writing this short reply.
Cabdirazzaq

Then why do you come to AGNOSTICISM forum and spout islam...?

Eventually you will understand that agnostics do not say there is no god.
They say they do not KNOW if there is .
And say that RELIGION thinks it does, but that is just their opinion..

Agnostics reject religion not because they reject god.
They reject the arrogance and irrationallity of those that say they know what god is...but offer only words as verification.
Not existant phenomena.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Simply because it goes against our(muslims, christians and jews) believes that Adam(peace be upon him) was the first man ever to walk this earth.
Can I prove this I just wrote, hardly think so but at the other hand I'm not forcing you in to something you don't want to believe in. As for me, I have no doubt that Allah(may he be exalted) exists just as I'm sure that I'm sitting here just now writing this short reply.
Cabdirazzaq

What is 'man'

Is it his testicles...
Or his Mind...

Occam thinks you mean..mind...
But other primates and dolphins have MIND...

Who was first.
Man says he was...because he has little ethics...
And IS... because he says he is...
And kills all who 's existance may oppose the primacy of man.

A human being.
Is any being that lives by a code based in reason.
In the belief in inherent rights for all thinking beings.

There are few human beings on this planet.
And many who claim to be.

Occam

[Razorofoccam]

Darwin never proved anything, he just hasn't been falsified yet...

Lostblackdog

Exactly

Occam

[J_Lazarus]

Dude, do you know that Da Vinci was NOT a Christian? Da Vinci was a blatant and obvious Goddess worshiper... and probably gay to boot, not that it should really matter in the final evaluation of such a talented person. Da Vinci worked for the Church, but read the Da Vinci Code and look at some of the actual works as they exist and as they are talked about in the book. I don't really believe that book holds the complete truth, but there is substantial support that Da Vinci was most certainly not a Christian. I'm not sure if Da Vinci was a Christian - but be careful about the Da Vinci Code. Theist and atheist scholars alike both agree that the scholarship of Baigent and his associates was nonsense - and they agree for good reason. Robert Price, for instance, has written a short article debunking the Da Vinci Code on his website. You can find the article here (http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/dvhoax.htm) , if you're interested.

- Laz

[Brocktoon]

I have noticed a common misunderstanding of terms (on all sides).

Darwinism is in fact completely dead.

Now notice I say 'Darwinism'.

Evolutionists do NOT accept Darwinism as scientific or even possible anymore.
There has been far too much scientific discovery since Darwins day.

I understand Evolutionism is still refered to as 'Darwinism' by the average Layman.
I just thought I would clear up any misunderstandings that would cause.

Darwinism is defunk and no longer accepted by anyone, including any modern Evolutionists.

The theory that replaced Darwinism (evolution through natural selection) is one where NEW genetic information is added to each generation of creature.

This theory is also being disregarded, mainly because of 80 years of excavating.
They simply do not find the expected 'in-betweens' that would have existed.

So then... the current theory .. much promoted by Stephen Gould is the 'Hopeful Monster'.
Puncuated Equalibrium is the official name I believe.

This states that (example) a Lizard commune was minding its own business.. then one gave birth to Feathered 'Chicken' Lizards.

The 'Chicken-lizards' seperated from the group and were now Chickens.

There is absolutely NO evidence this happens, can happen or would happen, however it is THE modern theory of Evolutionists.

Again.. absolutely no Evolutionists believe Natural Selection could or would explain Evolution anymore.

Hope that helps.

[cabdirazzaq]

Richard Dawkins seems to believe it, and I can not think of any evolutionst which is as famous as he, and I believe they are called neo-darwinism sense after WW2 all the most prominent scientist, mathemetics, chemists etc gathered to try to patch up this broken theory and they got the name neo-darwinism.

[Brocktoon]

Cabdirrazz... its funny how this is the only topic we seem to agree on.

Yes, Im sure you are right about it being called 'Neo-Darwinism'.

I suppose they wanted to pretend they are including Darwinism when in reality not one of them believes Natural Selection is anything but COUNTER-Evolutionism.

[complexity of genes is REDUCED in Natural Selection - Vs - NEW Genes being spontaneously ADDED in the Hopeful Monster theories]

It does seem Dawkins has taken over from Gould (rip) as the Premiere Head Priest of the Evolutionist Faith.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Cabdirrazz... its funny how this is the only topic we seem to agree on.

Yes, Im sure you are right about it being called 'Neo-Darwinism'.

I suppose they wanted to pretend they are including Darwinism when in reality not one of them believes Natural Selection is anything but COUNTER-Evolutionism.

[complexity of genes is REDUCED in Natural Selection - Vs - NEW Genes being spontaneously ADDED in the Hopeful Monster theories]

It does seem Dawkins has taken over from Gould (rip) as the Premiere Head Priest of the Evolutionist Faith.
Why is it then, that the further back in time you look, ie. the further you dig, the simpler the lifeforms you find are?

And also, evolution is not a process occuring in a vacuum. Asteroid impacts, etc., cause huge upheavals in the pace and direction of the changes.

There is a protein that has been isolated that is shared by all earthly life. This discovery supports a common origin.

I am not saying I support evolution, cuz I don't. I still cannot sea how seawater, lightning, rock, and time equal DNA. It is too big a leap for me.

I like the ancient texts that say ET's helped us along, as far as being a plausible explanation, though it is obviously not anywhere near being proven.

[Brocktoon]

Dont be fooled by imaginary 'Columns' showing an Evolutionist Artists 'Imagineered' picture of so-called 'Simple lifeforms' at the bottom and so-called 'More complex' lifeforms at the 'top' of a 'column'.

The vast majority of these pictures are NOT real and are based on what the theory 'Should look like'.

This is remarkable considering the fact that Evolutionists deliberately choose to seek and find the few examples that FIT THEIR pre-conceived 'Column'.

If they spent the exact same amount of time looking for opposite examples of their 'sacred columns' - they would easily find just as many in reverse.

This reminds me:
Granted, there are many honest Evolutionists, but on the whole, their ranks are filled with bald-faced liars, deceivers and people who deliberately manipulate propaganda, documentries and courts cases to push their agenda 'at any cost'.
Think Im kidding?
You can find textbooks TODAY in which Embrionic stages are fed to children as 'Evidence' of Evolution.
ALL Evolutionists and informed Science teachers know full well this is 100% Phony and despite the originator of this theory was literally arrested, charged and sentenced for FRAUD.

You will actually find Evolutionist Teachers feeding that to children in 2004!

Absolute Liars.

Annnnnnd done.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Jiminy Cricket, another freak agreement.

I have seen modern human footprints in rock, alongside dinosaur prints.
Kinda blows evolutions current sequence of events all to hell.
Many of these kinds of findings get buried, likely cuz they would be too troublesome to try to fit into the neat little theories being taught presently.
I have also read of archeologists who were blacklisted for the crime of finding and exhibiting such anomalous fossils. There are books full of them.

[Brocktoon]

Years ago a leading Evolutionist proposed the theory that Humans had evolved from Dolphins, (and never become Apes).

Anyone willing to think about it for two seconds realised that her theory was not one bit more or less 'Scientific' than theorising humans morphed from Apes.

Here's the catch:
Her Evolutionist peers did NOT WANT there to be any 'Public Impression' there was any 'question' about the Leakey School of thought.

It had to 'Appear' as if it was 'Well Known' Humans were from Monkeys.

This lady was subsequently 'shunned' from the circles and never to be heard from again in any publications.

This happened to another lady on a Mexican 'dig' a few years later too.
She made the mistake of finding human settlements in strata about a 'Billion' years before humans were supposed to exist.

The site was declared an 'abberation' for future investigation. funding was removed, the site buried and the researchers were never heard from again.

Shit like that goes on ALL THE TIME with the Church of Evolutionism.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Years ago a leading Evolutionist proposed the theory that Humans had evolved from Dolphins, (and never become Apes).

Anyone willing to think about it for two seconds realised that her theory was not one bit more or less 'Scientific' than theorising humans morphed from Apes.

Here's the catch:
Her Evolutionist peers did NOT WANT there to be any 'Public Impression' there was any 'question' about the Leakey School of thought.

It had to 'Appear' as if it was 'Well Known' Humans were from Monkeys.

This lady was subsequently 'shunned' from the circles and never to be heard from again in any publications.

This happened to another lady on a Mexican 'dig' a few years later too.
She made the mistake of finding human settlements in strata about a 'Billion' years before humans were supposed to exist.

The site was declared an 'abberation' for future investigation. funding was removed, the site buried and the researchers were never heard from again.

Shit like that goes on ALL THE TIME with the Church of Evolutionism.
Same thing happened in Ontario, they buried the site, and built a resort on top of it.
The archeologist was totally outcast afterwards.

[Brocktoon]

For what its worth... at the time the Leakey Family was having their 'Lucy' heralded and lauded in the press (and school textbooks) - MOST Evolutionists believed it was nothing more than a Giant Gibbon.
Others did not believe it was an 'Ape Person' but wanted to keep an open mind.

You wouldnt know that by the propaganda would you?

Austrolopithicus was TAUGHT AS FACT and still is DESPITE being clearly demonstrated as a Giant Gibbon.

Probably no one here even knows that 'Lucy' is now known to have been a Giant Gibbon (which is what most Evolutionists knew from the start).

So all that really happened was the fossil of a Giant Gibbon was found that was so broken up - it could not immediately be identified with 100% certainty is was.

Three people declared it was an 'In-Between' and the Worlds Press went crazy instructing the public of this 'Fact'.

Blaaaaaaaaaaaah

[Brocktoon]

Same thing happened in Ontario, they buried the site, and built a resort on top of it.
The archeologist was totally outcast afterwards.
I think I heard of this once... Do you know the name of the site?

Im not surprised though, they tried doing this in China once.

A Chinese Scientist commented (rather frustrated after being told how he was supposed to present the 'Facts')

"In America you have the right to question your own Government.... but apparently you are not allowed to question Darwin"

[This is because Chinese 'Evolutionists' do not have any common history with the 'Official Line' of Western Evolutionists Doctrine, however American Evolutionists were 'Instructing' them on what and how the 'story' was to be presented and researched.]

[BlackGuardXIII]

The whole ice age story they teach is laughably false. The evidence and laws of science show without a doubt that it did not happen the way it is taught.

If it did, then glaciers in England carried multi ton stones uphill...which is impossible. The stones that land on glaciers melt their way to the bottom, and the bigger they are, the faster they sink. They aren't carried up hill for certain.
The mammoths with buttercups in their mouths is another glaring contrary find.

[Razorofoccam]

I have noticed a common misunderstanding of terms (on all sides).

Darwinism is in fact completely dead.
.
Brocktoon.

Dont be so sure.... [the black death still lives]

Occams perspective on evolution never included gross mutations.
All is incremental.
Incremenal change is far more stable.
A constant creeping spread of parrameters.

What drives the spread? Life.
What is that?

Occam knows not.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Brocktoon.

Dont be so sure.... [the black death still lives]

Occams perspective on evolution never included gross mutations.
All is incremental.
Incremenal change is far more stable.
A constant creeping spread of parrameters.

What drives the spread? Life.
What is that?

Occam knows not.

Occam
I don't know either, but it sure is cool.

[Brocktoon]

Brocktoon.

Dont be so sure.... [the black death still lives]

Occams perspective on evolution never included gross mutations.
Maybe so, but this is not the current option the 'High Priests' of Evolutionism are accepting.
Mainly because they do not find them in the fossil record.
Keep in mind - almost ALL fossils 'should' show incremental changes.

All is incremental.
All?
Well there is no reason to believe evolution happened 'incrememtally.
I guess you can simply believe it if you want.

Incremenal change is far more stable.
Well.. sorry but a lot of evolutionists disagree with you.

A constant creeping spread of parrameters.
That would be interesting if we had any evidence of this happening.
Considering it would be constant tiny changes - you would hope we would see even one example in the last 50 years of modern research.

What drives the spread? Life.
What is that?
Occam knows not.
There is no 'Spread' other than your own conjecture. (this doesnt mean your wrong.. it just means you are basing it on imagination)

I like Life too.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Occam, good sir. I applaud your modest, honest, and open statement that you do not know. I don't either. Still workin on it tho. I find you set a stellar example to the younger members who are not sure if ANYONE on the web is not just playing games.


At the same time I wish to thank brocktoon for giving me a good chuckle. Reading his infallible pronouncements is always good for a smile.

[Brocktoon]

At the same time I wish to thank brocktoon for giving me a good chuckle. Reading his infallible pronouncements is always good for a smile.
Your welcome BlackyG :D

.. though I could never hope to repay the smiles you have given me, , , in particular everytime I look at that ridiculous pair of Bermuda shorts in your 'King of the Moutain' signature photo.

BlackGuard.... you never knew The Notorious 'Juiceman3000' from these forums?
Occam remembers him Im sure.

Oh well.. just curious

[darrellkitchen]

... you never knew The Notorious 'Juiceman3000' from these forums? .../em grabs Brocktoon by the collor of his shirt and smacks him around for a short while

Don't /smack Ever /smack Bring /smack That /smack Name /smack Up /smack Again ... /smack

/em lets go of Brocktoon and flings the imaginary hair from his bald head away from his eyes ...

There ... that said and done ... don't we all remember Juiceman ??? Don't we all wish we could forget his antics ???

Darrell

[FreakyJoeMan]

Oh, god. He had bout 4 or 5 identities, an he jus kept coming back. That was bout the time I stopped regularly postin in this forum, I jus didn't see any use with people like him around.

[Brocktoon]

I just remember he routinely antagonised this other guy called Geckopelli - Hilarious!

He (The OJ One) would have made a brilliant Talk-Radio guy LOL!

[darrellkitchen]

I just remember he routinely antagonised this other guy called Geckopelli ...Geckopelli ... ahha ... that's the ever elusive name I've been trying to remember today.

You know ... from the progressiveness of the interactions between "stan grossman" and "BlackGuardXIII" I had thoughts that these were incarnations of Juiceman->"stan grossman" and Geckopelli->"BlackGuardXIII" ... Please don't be insulted by this, BG-XIII, it was just an unwarranted assumption.

However, BG-XIII did not have the same feel as Gecko, in that Gecko leaned more toward interests in Science (questionablly of course as to whether his knowledge was self-imposed or acquired from institutionalized schooling ... I tend to lean toward the prior thought). Also, I happen to know from personal e-mails from Gecko that (if Gecko was pretending to be male) he was a she, and the photos of BG-XIII definately are male (assuming these are authentically the individual behind the persona of BlackGuardXIII ... which I have no reason to believe otherwise ... yet).

Ooopppsss ... I've taken this thread off-topic ... oh well, guess I'll have to delete my own message.

Sorry ... no more off-topic remarks from me in this thread. Sorry. Back to the discussion of ... what ... evolutionism?

Darrell

[Brocktoon]

YES!

Darrell you are bang-on... Stan Grossman was very similar to Juiceman (or his incarnations)
Now... BlackGuard DOES remind me of that Geckopelli!

Im sure this is what was 'tickling' my psyche while reading BlackGuard.

Mind you.. Geckopelli was very ummmm... 'Pissy' and would occasionally erupt into foul-mouthed insults and even threats.

DarkGuard is different - he threatens to NOT piss on me [in the event Im on fire].

I have no idea why Stan Grossman has been banned?
Whats the problem - he wasnt towing the Hipforums 'ThinkSpeak' Line?

[BlackGuardXIII]

YES!

Darrell you are bang-on... Stan Grossman was very similar to Juiceman (or his incarnations)
Now... BlackGuard DOES remind me of that Geckopelli!

Im sure this is what was 'tickling' my psyche while reading BlackGuard.

Mind you.. Geckopelli was very ummmm... 'Pissy' and would occasionally erupt into foul-mouthed insults and even threats.

DarkGuard is different - he threatens to NOT piss on me [in the event Im on fire].

I have no idea why Stan Grossman has been banned?
Whats the problem - he wasnt towing the Hipforums 'ThinkSpeak' Line?
I will first say re: Darwin lied, uh uh.

Now. I have posted to Geckopelli,and he to me.

toon, you are forgetting, I too, have erupted, swearing, and even wanted to pop you in the chops once for insulting my ex, who is a true lady.

stan banned? Likely found out to be 8 years old.

[Brocktoon]

I will first say re: Darwin lied, uh uh.

Now. I have posted to Geckopelli,and he to me.

toon, you are forgetting, I too, have erupted, swearing, and even wanted to pop you in the chops once for insulting my ex, who is a true lady.

stan banned? Likely found out to be 8 years old.
Yes, good point - you threatened to punch me LMAO!

Mind you, Geckopelli usually only did that when he was caught being stupid.
In your case, you mis-read, dont grasp the concept and misidentify the context.
Then you get furious about something that never happened - Like me insulting your fiance.
[Which never actually happened]

Mind you.. Juiceman constantly exposed Geckopelli as a the bag of hot-air he was.

In our case - I usually just give you some rope and you proceed to hang yourself without any help at all.
Then again.. you always manage to jump off a one-foot stool - so that makes it even funnier.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Yes, good point - you threatened to punch me LMAO!

Mind you, Geckopelli usually only did that when he was caught being stupid.
In your case, you mis-read, dont grasp the concept and misidentify the context.
Then you get furious about something that never happened - Like me insulting your fiance.
[Which never actually happened]

Mind you.. Juiceman constantly exposed Geckopelli as a the bag of hot-air he was.

In our case - I usually just give you some rope and you proceed to hang yourself without any help at all.
Then again.. you always manage to jump off a one-foot stool - so that makes it even funnier.
My ex was the one you claimed I had written was descended from a different type of ape in your bizarre attempt to shift your posted comments onto me. Why I dont' know. It was not my fiance anyway.
Trust me on this one point though. Whatever you may try to attribute to me, say about me, or call me, you will never raise my pulse a single beat ever again. I am indifferent to your attempts at riling me now.
But your pretzel logic, red herrings, rabbit trails, distractions, and equivocations which you post as indisputable facts, amuse me. thx again.

[Brocktoon]

I accused YOU of believing she was descended from a different kind of Ape (or any Ape at all).

This is because you assert she is from a different 'Race' than you.

You said that because you are a Racist.
You never denied holding that belief.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I accused YOU of believing she was descended from a different kind of Ape (or any Ape at all).

This is because you assert she is from a different 'Race' than you.

You said that because you are a Racist.
You never denied holding that belief.
only 5 or 6 times directly replying to your biased conjectures did I state emphatically that there is one race, the human race. You must be getting memory loss, since most folks would remember something that was constantly repeated directly to them. You just want to stir the shit, so you lie in every post you make. You are so full of it you're steaming. well, for me, this nth boldfaced lie was the final stir.
go lie about someone else for your jollies, cuz I will not respond a 7th time to the same bullshit, it is silly.

[Brocktoon]

only 5 or 6 times directly replying to your biased conjectures did I state emphatically that there is one race, the human race. You must be getting memory loss, since most folks would remember something that was constantly repeated directly to them. You just want to stir the shit, so you lie in every post you make. You are so full of it you're steaming. well, for me, this nth boldfaced lie was the final stir.
go lie about someone else for your jollies, cuz I will not respond a 7th time to the same bullshit, it is silly.
The problem is that you DO insist there is 'One Race'.
Then you insist people are clearly different based on their colour.

Here is YOUR OWN reply to MY assertion there are NO RACES based on appearance:

different is different, is black white? you are confused cuz you are confused.
You could not be clearer - Black is NOT white and therefore they are Differenct.

You then proceeded to explain VERY CLEARLY that you distinguish people based on colour AND that you are in fact Biased towards them based on that:

I am mildly biased in favour of whites, as I posted earlier, according to a psychology test I took.
You are a self-admitted Racist.

Dont bother complaining about my opinion - YOUR POSTS explain this themselves.

Your the one who refers to your ex-girlfriend as 'A Black' ... funny.. you dont say 'My White Fiance' or my 'White Friend'.
But in her case she is always 'The BLack ___'

BlackGuard = SuperRacist

[BlackGuardXIII]

You are a rookie at twisting words around brocktoon. I was better at it in 1980 in highschool. you know as well as I the ONLY reason I mentioned my 5 year long partnership with Sharon in the context I did was in an effort to hold up your ludicrous, eurocentric, historically fictional conjecture that I found was a great example of what she taught me. I am so glad she did. She told me about folks like you and I laughed, "Who could be so biased that they would not accept a country's geographical location?" said I. She said many like you try to get Egypt out of Africa, still there though. lol
I laughed, I could not imagine the willful blindness necessary for one to state such nonsense.
Then you come out with the qualified locating of Egypt as 'technically' in Africa. I guess you don't see how hateful that is? It is very stupid, but some are hurt by such hate, toon, hurt from the pain of being told over and over, "You are nothing, we are all there is....." Come a day..... ha ha ha ha
Unbelievable.

And my favorite, which you have confirmed at least once, thatch roof mud hut dwelling Germanic people who lived across a sea from Egypt are more likely to have helped build the pyramids than the Nubians, on the same continent, in fact neighbours. That is laughably prejudiced, and the fact you confirmed it is enough to convince me you really cannot see anything wrong with such lies.
I do. Now.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I forgot, oh ya, the role you suggest for the Germans is as consultants.


I had to remind you.

that is truly rich.

And my fiance is not white, so that might explain me not calling her white.

Just cuz one uses a colour as a descriptor for expediency of getting the message across, does not mean they feel the range of colours is somehow chopped up into segments. I would not draw a line, and would challenge any who try to. There is nowhere that one can draw a line.
I am engaged to a Native lady, because I said Native, am I racist Brocktoon?
I am a very odd one then. lol

The message you are sending out is that skin cannot be described by its colour. What a childish view. I have very pale skin, my ancestors are from northern europe. Sharon had very dark brown skin, hers are from Africa. Same race, deaftoon, different COLOR. Oh yeah, I forgot you will now be reconvinced I meant different races. it is a silly pretzel your logic ties.

[Brocktoon]

YOU suggested schools were teaching Germans built the Pyramids (which you attributed, in part, to Jesus painting portraying him as European).

I offered an 'At Best' possibility.

You have no reason to think people travelled over the Sahara desert to build the Pyramids.
You just make it up thinking your 'Helping the Blacks'.

Now you are boasting about 'Getting a Native'.

Are you gonna 'help her' by pretending Haida peoples built the Pyramids.. just so she can feel equal to 'The Blacks' (as you call them)

Face it BlackyG... psychological test do not lie - they proved you are a racist.
Thats YOUR ADMISSION - not my accusation.

[BlackGuardXIII]

YOU suggested schools were teaching Germans built the Pyramids (which you attributed, in part, to Jesus painting portraying him as European).

I offered an 'At Best' possibility.

You have no reason to think people travelled over the Sahara desert to build the Pyramids.
You just make it up thinking your 'Helping the Blacks'.

Now you are boasting about 'Getting a Native'.

Are you gonna 'help her' by pretending Haida peoples built the Pyramids.. just so she can feel equal to 'The Blacks' (as you call them)

Face it BlackyG... psychological test do not lie - they proved you are a racist.
Thats YOUR ADMISSION - not my accusation.

silly man, what is all this hooey you write? If you like, I can paste your actual words to prove you are a pathological liar. I'd rather not, it's too meaningless to me.

Alaikum a salam, Brocktoon.

[Brocktoon]

No no.. please go ahead and paste my actual words.
Thanks in advance.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Egypt is on the continent of Africa so technically they most certainly were Africans.

Unlikely they were Sub-Saharin Africans
certainly possible there were Germanic peoples involved
You probably even believe someone black has 'evolved' from a different line than someone with White Skin.


Well, toon, you get off easy, cuz this is way too pointless. You took your words above and tried to make me out to be the racist, while all along I admitted my bias, and you denied yours. That last quote is why I quit. You claimed I said it, and that was the low point in your series of lies and slanders about me.

[BlackGuardXIII]

YOU suggested schools were teaching Germans built the Pyramids (which you attributed, in part, to Jesus painting portraying him as European).

I offered an 'At Best' possibility.

You have no reason to think people travelled over the Sahara desert to build the Pyramids.
You just make it up thinking your 'Helping the Blacks'.

Now you are boasting about 'Getting a Native'.

Are you gonna 'help her' by pretending Haida peoples built the Pyramids.. just so she can feel equal to 'The Blacks' (as you call them)

Face it BlackyG... psychological test do not lie - they proved you are a racist.
Thats YOUR ADMISSION - not my accusation.
So, I will conclude this time, once again, by stating you lie, and I never said any of the above, cept taking a test in Psyc 102 that should I was in a very small group in the class that were the LEAST biased, but yes, you are right, mildly favoring whites.
I never attributed the school lies to the pic of Jesus, another damn lie.
I have plenty. Its right beside the Sphinx, for one, and they are a similar age.
Read a few more books, not just your bible, and I would recommend "Black spark, white fire" to start, though I know you'll never dare open the first page.
I have done zip to help the black people, so how could I think I am? Another damn slanderous lie. You're a pig.
Boasting....cant even write your hateful, slanderous, despicable verbal diarrhea. I never did.
I AM GODDAMN LUCKY TO BE WITH EILEEN, WHO HAPPENS TO BE A BEAUTIFUL NATIVE AMERICAN LADY!!!!!!!!!!
There, now I did. You stupid fuck.
I am gonna pretend you don't exist, cuz I am sickened that such vile slime walks this earth.
I am so lucky I'm not you. Bigot in denial, arrogant egomaniac.
My fiancee and I are not inviting you to our wedding, whether it be in a church, or at the beach, in a traditional ceremony. Cuz I don't like to be around liars that spread slanderous fiction about me, over and over, like you do. Go to hell, and say hi to satan for me. that chickenshit loser.

[Razorofoccam]

Brocktroon

Blackguard never said anything about 'blacks' ..He used the analogy 'black and white'
A perpective of opposites
And he stated 'HIS TEST SCORES' indicated a preference.
He did not set the test...Or more importantly..
Interpret the replies..

Nowhere on this forum has occam percieved racist attitudes from blackguard...

Occam states to you and all that free thinking IS why we are here.
You do not appear to hold evolution.
The dynamic adaption of species to enviroment.
As a probable thing..

This is well and good.
But it is the only theory we have...besides creationism.
And creationism is to occam....

A defeat.
A defeat of our will as a race.
An acceptance that we 'should accept'
That all is a mystery we cannot solve..

Occam says we can.
He knows we can.
He has faith in the one thing that allows faith...reason.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

About ten percent of the way thru my planned posting of a complete account of his lies and slander, I found I could not bear to go on. It is too much effort for no perceivable gain. So, Brocktoon, you'll just have to believe me about the other 90 % lol.

Occam, you have become a great source of energy and relief for me. I get a renewed sense of purpose from your very keen, and loving views. And your optimism is a great example for me to aspire towards. I agree we can, but am pretty shaky on the we will part. Will we? no comment, I've put my two bits in before, no point harping.

I am very convinced that everything that will happen will be a good thing, and it will all make sense later. The interim events and details, though, to most of us, may appear horrific. That is my guess.
Then, I believe, love will banish hate, and earth will be better off cuz of it.

Godspeed, BG13

[Brocktoon]

Egypt is on the continent of Africa so technically they most certainly were Africans.
Yes funny aint it.
This is funny because you decided that 'Africans' built the Pyramids.
Its funny to award you 'technically' correct.

Hey.. you know what.. People from the Northern Hemisphere built the Pyramids!
Yep.

Unlikely they were Sub-Saharin Africans
Absolutely agreed upon by every Egyptologist, Archeaologist and Historian in the world today.
All evidence suggests that Egyptians built the Pyramids.

certainly possible there were Germanic peoples involved
It certainly is possible.
As i said before - its 'Possible' some Sub-Saharin Africans were too.
Anything is Possible.
That was my concession to your claim Schoolchildren were taught Germans built the Pyramids.
At best,, its possible some were hired (though I dont see any evidence of it)

You probably even believe someone black has 'evolved' from a different line than someone with White Skin.

Notice how i state 'You Probably'.
I was 'betting' you do.
the statement is 'asking' the question.

YOU never denied this!?

Answer the question already?

Maybe you dont believe 'Blacks' are evolved from a different type of Ape than 'Whites'
[Occam believes this and at least he admits it]

When will Blackguard come clean!?

[BlackGuardXIII]

still hold Germans more likely than Africans? I say Africans to placate your biased, illogical wish that Egypt was elsewhere. But it is still, as you like to say, 'technically' in Africa. lol

as for the rest, B.S., not worth responding,

Love, BG13

[Brocktoon]

BlackGuard..

Tell us again how 'Africans' built the Pyramids?

[gnrm23]

Hey.. you know what.. People from the Northern Hemisphere built the Pyramids!

Maybe you dont believe 'Blacks' are evolved from a different type of Ape than 'Whites'





oy OY OY !!!!!!!!!!!
vershimmelten dummkopfen...
biden sie in drerd, like an onion with your head in the ground and your feet in the air...



yeah, i know paul kantner wrote a cute song about the pale people coming from outer space & inventing everything important on this little planet, but... really, where do you dig up these unlikely scenarios?

kleopatra had more nubian than semitic in her ancestry, mmkay?
selah

[Brocktoon]

Last I checked the Equator was somewhere down about Kenya?

[Razorofoccam]

Brocktoon

Maybe you dont believe 'Blacks' are evolved from a different type of Ape than 'Whites'
[Occam believes this and at least he admits it]

When will Blackguard come clean!? Brocktroon.

One current theory holds that human beings.
'Homo sapiens sapiens.'
Evolved from 'Homo sapiens neandertalensis'
And that THEY
Evolved from 'homo sapiens'

And homo sapiens evolved from 'Homo erectus'
The first 'non ape'

Homo habalis ..was the last 'ape'
on our line...

Our line is the line gorillas and chimps and all the things you call APE.
Are NOT on.

An interesting puzzle to solve...
Far more interesting than simply believing that some god of some monotheistic sect. Suddenly made everything exist..
Ex nihilo

Occam

PS.
SO
'blacks' evolved from a different type of
ape than 'whites'
Well the last APE on our line was 3 steps back down the ladder...

What is this ridiculous focus on colour?
African people have as much genetic variation to eskimos as they have to anglos..
So do eskimos come from a different type of ape?
What about kalahari bushmen or mongol hearders?

What about everyone with big noses came from a different type of ape?

[darrellkitchen]

Anything you guys want to keep not relating to the topic of this thread ... like the bickerin', start cuttin'n'pasting now. Cause if it has nothing to do with the topic, it's comming out before end of day 11/30/2004.


http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46753, titled Off-Topic Thread Pruning and Hijacking's ... read it!

Darrell

[Brocktoon]

Darrel.. .. Theres not way to start saving the posts because we have no way of knowing what YOU will determine is 'Off-Topic'?

[Razorofoccam]

Anything you guys want to keep not relating to the topic of this thread ... like the bickerin', start cuttin'n'pasting now. Cause if it has nothing to do with the topic, it's comming out before end of day 11/30/2004.


http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46753, titled Off-Topic Thread Pruning and Hijacking's ... read it!

Darrell
Darrell

Well occams recent posts are about evolution...
And that is what the thread is about.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Anything you guys want to keep not relating to the topic of this thread ... like the bickerin', start cuttin'n'pasting now. Cause if it has nothing to do with the topic, it's comming out before end of day 11/30/2004.


http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46753, titled Off-Topic Thread Pruning and Hijacking's ... read it!

Darrell
bravo, that is great news. I have read the bickering enough times, so I feel no need to save it.
I applaud the move, and hope it carries over to other threads where many, my self included, have gotten sidetracked.

[Shockw4ve]

It seems to me that you fail to understand that a theory can only be disproven by the finding of contradictory information or facts. It is not a fact that Allah exists. You can offer no concrete evidence that he does. It is all speculation. Unless more sufficient evidence arises then you cannot expect us to disregard this theory. I find it ironic that you come here representing the Muslim religion, yet you are attempting to convince us by using science to defeat science. Science is currently our best way of learning the truth. We know all that we do today thanks to many courageous men who sought the truth even in the face of persecution. You are trying to stand on the shoulders of these men in an attempt to discredit one of them.

[Brocktoon]

Shockwave.
A Theory doesnt really get 'Disproven' since its not really a 'Fact' to begin with.
Thats why we say 'Theory'.

Not to turn this into a Definition Game - but many can make a convincing argument that Evolutionism is more of a Hypothesis and not even a true 'Theory'.

In anycase, Darwin and Darwinism are said to have been 'Disproven' by modern Science.
In Fairness.. Darwin simply did not know (and couldnt have) that many of his theories were Unscientific.
well.. there was no research at the time anyway.

To those in Islam and Christianity there is no 'Science' VS 'Religion'.
God Creates Science, Nature Physics etc etc.

Im not gonna speak for Islam but Im pretty sure they see it as the same way (except Allah creating instead of God)

[Shockw4ve]

Shockwave.
A Theory doesnt really get 'Disproven' since its not really a 'Fact' to begin with.
Thats why we say 'Theory'.
Point well taken on that. You are right. However, my point is that it would be illogical in my opinon to throw all scientific evidence and theory out the window and head down the path of blind faith. There is massive evidence that backs up the theory of evolution. Unless greater evidence or a better theory comes along then it would be illogical to disregard it. I believe it to be a far better explanation of how we came into being than by being created in an instant by some type of entity. If you want to look at the bigger picture, as in the creation of the universe and not just man, that is an entirely different matter. I have my own unique views on that subject.

[sooty_the_kat]

the way i see it you aim to disprove a theory to see how valid it is. and from what i have found there is more evidence against creationism than there is evolution. hence in my mind the theory of evolution is more probable. i wonder, how do people who believe absolutely in creationism explain vestigial organs? these are outstandingly supportive of the theory of evolution.

[Razorofoccam]

the way i see it you aim to disprove a theory to see how valid it is. and from what i have found there is more evidence against creationism than there is evolution. hence in my mind the theory of evolution is more probable. i wonder, how do people who believe absolutely in creationism explain vestigial organs? these are outstandingly supportive of the theory of evolution.
Sooty

There is more validation in existant reality for evolution.
Than creationism.

Occam

[Brocktoon]

People Explain 'Vestigial Organs' the good old fashioned way - by studying and researching.
By learning.

Eventually an explanation is found for the very few body parts left, which are not understood.

Just because there are 3-4 'mystery' body parts left (there used to be over 100) does not mean they must also happen to be 3-4 parts 'left over' from when we were Apes.

[Sera Michele]

It is much easier for me to believe what we have learned through science than to believe that we were "poofed" into place by some god, more specifically the christian god.

No one has all the answers when it comes to how we got here, but when we are searching for them it is smart (and we will get farther) to take the more logical, reasonable path than to sum it up to something of a devine being and just leave it at that.

Besides, the fact that we share so much DNA with the great apes is pretty indicitive that we are related in some way. Again, much more logical than just popping out of nowhere on the command of some god.

But none of that means there isn't some sort of "god" out there. It just means it is likely we evolved.

[gnrm23]

WE WERE NEVER "APES" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the "other" great apes & the humans shared a common ancestor...

(well, i'll be a monkey's uncle!)

[geckopelli]

Homo sapient sapient is bio-chemically related to all life on earth. A demonstratable fact.

Biological Evolution through mutation is an observed fact.

Biological Evolutionary Adaptations stands a highly backed up theory. No accredited scientist denies it's existence.

No one has yet offered a serious alternative to evolution, because there exist zero evidence for any other general mechanism than evolution to account for the diversity of related life-forms on earth.

Creationism is not a theory. The are zero pieces of evidence to back it up. It's not even a hypothesis, because it does not attempt to explain the observed facts.

[Bilby]

I reckon us humans crash landed on planet Earth from another planet what was technologically advanced a few million years ago and had to adapt to a hunter gather existance just to stay alive.Over time primative tools were made and the various techno ages such as the stone age and iron age came about.

[Ellenfunkel]

The alleged impossibility of things such as cells coming together and evolving into everything we know doesn't discredit the theory of evolution; it's a testament to the miracle of life!

[geckopelli]

I reckon us humans crash landed on planet Earth from another planet what was technologically advanced a few million years ago and had to adapt to a hunter gather existance just to stay alive.Over time primative tools were made and the various techno ages such as the stone age and iron age came about.
If so, how do you explain the biochemical signiture common to all life on earth- including us?

"The alleged impossibility of things such as cells coming together and evolving into everything we know doesn't discredit the theory of evolution; it's a testament to the miracle of life!"

Indeed!

Blind believers don't understand that life is a low probability event.

[Bilby]

If so, how do you explain the biochemical signiture common to all life on earth- including us?


I'll have to think about that one.

[BlackGuardXIII]

If so, how do you explain the biochemical signiture common to all life on earth- including us?

"The alleged impossibility of things such as cells coming together and evolving into everything we know doesn't discredit the theory of evolution; it's a testament to the miracle of life!"

Indeed!

Blind believers don't understand that life is a low probability event.
I have read of this signature, which is a protein that is common to all life on earth. This certainly points to a common origin of all living things. The idea that E.T.'s had some input at some point is a very interesting one. Many ancient sources claim just that. The Babylonians built temples with rooftop courtyards expressly for the purpose of interaction with the 'Gods'. The word that they used to describe the first hybrid of our two species was 'adamae', meaning earthling. In Bali, they have kept records of their geneology for 450 generations, back to a union of an ET female and their king.
I have often looked at the story of Adam's rib as analogous to the event of their genetic input which we could only understand when put into terminology we could then grasp.

[geckopelli]

Too believe that two different species can interbreed is pretty far out in left field, considering that they evolved complety independent of one another.

Even diverging spices as closely related as lions and tiger rarely breed successfully.

[Brocktoon]

WE WERE NEVER "APES" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the "other" great apes & the humans shared a common ancestor...

(well, i'll be a monkey's uncle!)
I agree that we were never Apes.

Evolutionists Do.

Ok Grnm.. since this is all imagination anyway - you might feel better knowing the theory supposed we came from 'Ape Creatures', which became modern Apes and Humans.

[Brocktoon]

Homo sapient sapient is bio-chemically related to all life on earth. A demonstratable fact.
Im not sure what you mean by 'Related'?
IF you mean that all life has certain fundemental bio-chemical characteristics then we can call say there is a 'Relation' i suppose.

Please explain how to demonstrate this bio-chemical relation and why that indicates evolution occured?

Biological Evolution through mutation is an observed fact.
Yes, Radiated Tadpols can be observed having 'Scrambled' information.
Evolution which adds new information through/by mutation has never been observed. By 'Never' i mean it has been attempt over and over and NEVER observed.

Biological Evolutionary Adaptations stands a highly backed up theory. No accredited scientist denies it's existence.
If by 'Adaptations' you mean the loss or trade of already existing genetic information - then Yes.

If you mean the addition of new genetic information (as Evolutionists theorize) - then any accredited scientist can 'Imagine' all they want - it doesnt make it happen because they 'dont deny it'.

No one has yet offered a serious alternative to evolution, because there exist zero evidence for any other general mechanism than evolution to account for the diversity of related life-forms on earth.
There is no 'offer' to be 'considered', however there most certainly is a basic and historic explanation which suggests an Intelligent Designer made it so.
This may not be your 'Choice' or 'Belief' but it certainly does offer an explanation.

Creationism is not a theory. The are zero pieces of evidence to back it up. It's not even a hypothesis, because it does not attempt to explain the observed facts.
Your last statement was not even Valid.
There are zero peice of evidence backing up your last Opinion.
It does not even attempt to explain the observed facts.

[Just thought you would enjoy the same kind of outright denouncement you give out ;) ]

[Brocktoon]

If so, how do you explain the biochemical signiture common to all life on earth- including us?
You just did when you described it as a 'Signature'.
Well Said.

"The alleged impossibility of things such as cells coming together and evolving into everything we know doesn't discredit the theory of evolution; it's a testament to the miracle of life!"
The final conclusion of this quote also says it all - Its a Testament to the Miracle of Life.

Indeed!

Blind believers don't understand that life is a low probability event.
Sadly, No they dont.
They simply accept the Official State Creationist Story and the Decree's of its High Priests.

[geckopelli]

Brockton,

Evolution theory does NOT suppose that we came from "ape creature".
This is some of the misinformation perpetuated by creationist fanatics.
--------------
Why must you believers misrepresent science instead of proving your case for a magic man in the sky? Is it simply that your convictions lack any form of substaniation?

You clearly have little understanding of science; is that also true of your belief system?

What's your alternative to Evolutionary adaptation? You argue petty details against science, yet expect us to accept your grandiose statements of magical creation, without providing a single detail to back it up. Hypocrisy?

Although the details of the mechanics of the evolutionary process are still up for debate, NO reputable scientist denies the FACT of biological evolutionary adaptation.

[geckopelli]

Brocktoon,
"You just did when you described it as a 'Signature'.
Well Said."

Non-sequitor.

"The final conclusion of this quote also says it all - Its a Testament to the Miracle of Life."

Word play- it works on the sunday school mind, but not on any one with the slightest degree of sophistication.
Hitting the lottery is a miracle- in other words, a low probability event.

[Brocktoon]

Brockton,

Evolution theory does NOT suppose that we came from "ape creature".
This is some of the misinformation perpetuated by creationist fanatics.
--------------

Yes, Evolutionist do imagine that humans 'evolved' from an "Ape Creature" which evolved from some soup.

Since there is no actual 'Ape Creature' and the theory can simply change whenever the imagineers desire it to - Its not possible to ever 'Pin them down'.

In anycase - Most Evolutionist believed the Soup morphed into an "Ape Creature' somewhere before turning into a Human Being.

If you have new information Geckopelli - Please make it available to us.

[Remember that just 10 years ago it was 'Scientific Fact' humans evolved from 'Lucy' who was a Giant 'Gibbon-Human'... but now that is dismissed. So it hard to keep up on what they Evolutionists are imagining this week??]

[geckopelli]

"Im not sure what you mean by 'Related'?
IF you mean that all life has certain fundemental bio-chemical characteristics then we can call say there is a 'Relation' i suppose.

Please explain how to demonstrate this bio-chemical relation and why that indicates evolution occured?"

As simple as possible:
Of the two possible forms of a particular amino acids, only one type occurs in life on earth.
This type is no more probable than the other type; had life forms come in to being independently, animals containing both the d and l forms would exist. They do not.
This is because that intial spark of life is a low probability event. It was simply chance that one formed life before the other.

Had a god created all life independently, the rules of reality, which he would also have created, would have produced approximately equal numbers of d and l supported life forms.

"Yes, Radiated Tadpols can be observed having 'Scrambled' information.
Evolution which adds new information through/by mutation has never been observed. By 'Never' i mean it has been attempt over and over and NEVER observed."

This is a self-contridictory statement. Mutations ARE an alteration in the genetic program- "new" information, if you must call it that.


"If you mean the addition of new genetic information (as Evolutionists theorize) - then any accredited scientist can 'Imagine' all they want - it doesnt make it happen because they 'dont deny it'."

Again, you misrepresent evolution theory. The genetic program is altered by evironmental pressures; "new" is your word.


"There is no 'offer' to be 'considered', however there most certainly is a basic and historic explanation which suggests an Intelligent Designer made it so.
This may not be your 'Choice' or 'Belief' but it certainly does offer an explanation."

And the stork offers an explanation for the existence of babies.
But like creationism, it lacks any evidence what so ever.


"Your last statement was not even Valid.
There are zero peice of evidence backing up your last Opinion.
It does not even attempt to explain the observed facts."

Creationism is not a theory. The are zero pieces of evidence to back it up. It's not even a hypothesis, because it does not attempt to explain the observed facts.
-Of course this is valid. Point out a hole-if you can.

And I will contiune to denounce attempts to misrepresent science in the name of religious fanatacism.

[geckopelli]

[QUOTE=Brocktoon]Yes, Evolutionist do imagine that humans 'evolved' from an "Ape Creature" which evolved from some soup.

A religous lie.

"Since there is no actual 'Ape Creature' and the theory can simply change whenever the imagineers desire it to - Its not possible to ever 'Pin them down'."

Ever hear of homo erectus?

"In anycase - Most Evolutionist believed the Soup morphed into an "Ape Creature' somewhere before turning into a Human Being."

No, they don't. Morphed is a word from a comic book. Environmentally induced evolutionary changes occur in small phases over many, many generations.


"Remember that just 10 years ago it was 'Scientific Fact' humans evolved from 'Lucy' who was a Giant 'Gibbon-Human'... but now that is dismissed. So it hard to keep up on what they Evolutionists are imagining this week??"

Another misrepresentation if not outright deception.
Science doesn't work that way. Flat statements are for religion.
A hypotesis was advanced thet lucy may have been a direct ancestor of homo sapient sapients. it was debated and tested, and did not become generally accepted.

[Brocktoon]

=geckopelli
As simple as possible:
Of the two possible forms of a particular amino acids, only one type occurs in life on earth.
This type is no more probable than the other type; had life forms come in to being independently, animals containing both the d and l forms would exist. They do not.
This is because that intial spark of life is a low probability event. It was simply chance that one formed life before the other.Interesting Speculation on your part.

What is more interesting is your uncalled for opinion that this is 'simply chance'.

If anything, you are making a good argument for Intelligent Design and in particular efficient design.


Had a god created all life independently, the rules of reality, which he would also have created, would have produced approximately equal numbers of d and l supported life forms.Sorry but im a little confused.
You stated that only one exists on this planet?

Please clarify?

"Yes, Radiated Tadpols can be observed having 'Scrambled' information.
Evolution which adds new information through/by mutation has never been observed. By 'Never' i mean it has been attempt over and over and NEVER observed

This is a self-contridictory statement. Mutations ARE an alteration in the genetic program- "new" information, if you must call it that.."Im not sure how you understand 'Contradictions' but maybe its worth defining 'New Information' first.

A great example would be taking this sentence as an example of what a Tadpoles Genetic information might look like.

Now here is the effects of mutation:

A garet exple woulamd be tag tnkintehis see asof wha an exaple t a Tdpaoles Gec infornetiation might olok li.ke

This is to say there is no 'Novel' information added.
Existing information is being 'mixed' into different combinations.

Further to that... some information is being lost.

The problem with calling 'Scrambled information' "New" information is that it goes nowhere in helping the evolutionists story.

Evolutionists really dont care if its 'Mixed' or 'New combinations' - for their purposes they need 'Novel' and 'Added' information.

This has NEVER been observed and (so far) there is no known way it can happen.

Again, you misrepresent evolution theory. The genetic program is altered by evironmental pressures; "new" is your word.Loss or Gain of already existing genetic information is refered to as 'Natural Selection' by ALL scientists, including Evolutionists.

"New" genetic information is also a word already used by Evolutionists and Creationists and ID'ers.

Its required to 'Evolve' in the fashion Evolutionists suppose.

It IS their theory that NEW information is being added.

And the stork offers an explanation for the existence of babies.
But like creationism, it lacks any evidence what so ever.Please forward that to the Scientists at the exciting new http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

[Fair warning.. they are Scientists, so they will probably ask you to demonstrate your Stork Theory ;) ]


Creationism is not a theory. The are zero pieces of evidence to back it up. It's not even a hypothesis, because it does not attempt to explain the observed facts.
-Of course this is valid. Point out a hole-if you can. Your theory that Creationism is not a theory is not a valid theory.
You have zero pieces of evidence to back up your claim.
Your claim does not even attempt to explain the observed facts about Creationism.
This is a valid description of your statement.
Point our a hole in it if you can?

And I will contiune to denounce attempts to misrepresent science in the name of religious fanatacism.You have misrepresented Evolutionist Science several times in this thread, however i am happy to deounce religious fanatisism right along with you.

Lets agree that Religious Fanatics are on their own and neither of us having any interest in them.
Whether they proclaim Creationism, Evolutionism or Intelligent Design movements.

[BlackGuardXIII]

I think that all our veggies, fruits, and farm animals are examples of species changing over time due to genetic traits that are favored being carried on, and unfavorable ones being left behind.

Cauliflower, Broccoli, Brussel Sprouts, and Cabbage are all human selected and genetically changed versions of one original plant.
This seems to me like a supportive piece of information to accept that survival in the wild would also do the same. Therefore, over time, natural selection would do exactly what farmers do so we can have carrots that are chewable, and cows that give gallons of milk a day.

[Sera Michele]

Well we could go with a theory from South Park...we are all mix of creatures from seperate planets across the universe, sent to live together and have their lives taped for a bunch of aliens entertainment across space. Reality TV...gotta love it...(actually, I hate it, but I do love South Park). Anyone seen that episode? It's genius =P

[BlackGuardXIII]

Well we could go with a theory from South Park...we are all mix of creatures from seperate planets across the universe, sent to live together and have their lives taped for a bunch of aliens entertainment across space. Reality TV...gotta love it...(actually, I hate it, but I do love South Park). Anyone seen that episode? It's genius =P
I want to see it, sounds great.
I really like the one where Jesus and Satan meet in the ring on pay per view.
That show has some very funny moments.
I like the Canadian show, Trailer Park Boys better though. To me, its the funniest thing since Python.

[Brocktoon]

Finally BlackGuard and I can agree on something - Trailer Park Boys are great.
I wouldnt not compare them to Python.. but they are pretty good
You Reveeny looking MuthaFucka ;)

BTW.. 'Natural Selection' of either Vegetable or Animals has nothing to do with Evolutionism other than being something that happens in nature (Like Eating, Breathing or Mating).
In other words, Evolutionists must guess Natural Selection happens WHILE their theory allegedly happened - but its NOT their mechanism.

[cabdirazzaq]

Just as Brocktoon says, what does this really have to do with evolution, did you know that the waves near the seashore can sometimes swallow a couple of stones and then throw them up in the a correct order with the smallest stones being up front while the biggest being at the back. The point here being, these rocks find a symmetrical order in natur, my question is can they build sand castles?

You explain to us a simple process which is not so diffucult, but can it explain the extremly complex systems which we are composed of. Everything in nature screeeaaams design, everything is so perfectly fixed for live to survive, how could the eye evolve, how could the complex system of blood congealing evolve from nothing even though this system is like a huge casade system? These and a few other question are enlightened in Darwins Black Box by Michael Behe, a book which is said to be the straw that broke the camels back. I´ve read that book and I say that you have to be either extremly stupid to still believe in evolution or in complete denial and in love of the neo darwinistic orthodoxy.

Little knowledge of science makes one an atheist, much knowledge of science makes one a believe in God.

[thumontico]

Natural selection is the process by which evolution occurs. Mutations occur, making a species better or worse suited to survive, thus natural selection determines the advancement of a species in a certain direction.

If you guys are still denying evolution I must say that you are blatently and actively blinding yourself and I question your intellgence. Active ignorance. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I suggest if you wish to continue your futile attempt to reach the afterlife that you begin to claim that God set up the initial conditions for evolution or that he created the Big Bang. Because you cannot simply cite some rediculously incredulous book and think it will convince people of your ignorant preachings.

cabdirazzaq it is common sense that smaller stones [being less massive] will settle towards the shoreline and the larger stones farther back.

Because you cannot understand the nature and process by which species and bodily systems evolve does not invalidate them. "The eye is really complicated so that must mean that this completely plausible thing called 'evolution' is wrong and my idea of a God must be right, even though I have to suspend rationality to make it sound credible." it is bullshit. No other way to put it. It does not evolve from nothing. It happens of hundreds of thousands of years from the initial amino acids that formed from elemental chemicals in the massive bodies of water. Perhaps when seeking answers concerning evolutionary biology you should consult a Biologist and not an internet forum....

Meh, why do I bother... I wonder when/if life [of any sort] is discovered somewhere other than earth what your argument will be. What about the fossilized bacteria on Mars? I don't recall what was determined about those.

[geckopelli]

Brocktoon

The fact of the existence of the two forms of amino acids and the equal probability of spontaneous formation are matters of biochemistry that can be reproduced upon demand. Your ignorance on the subject is not surprising; it's hard science of which few lay people have knowledge.
But I've expounded on cellaur biological evolution (as well as many other science subjects beyond the casual knowledge of most) enough times on the web site.
If you are not afraid to approach truth, by all means study the matter. It's legitiment science, accesible to anyone, but not to be understood without a firm foundation of knowledge.

"Sorry but im a little confused.
You stated that only one exists on this planet?

Please clarify?"

Again-study. Learn why the chemical properties involved require the same probability of formation.

Simple: Once life A has established itself, it kills any life B that comes along late.

"Im not sure how you understand 'Contradictions' but maybe its worth defining 'New Information' first.

This is a word game, and not in the least scientific. The structure of english grammar has zero to do with genetic evolution. It's a non-sequitor analogy.

New genes- a gene that contains infor mation that it did not contain before.

Gotta go-but I'll be back!

[geckopelli]

(con't)
"This has NEVER been observed and (so far) there is no known way it can happen."

Are you a new person?
Are your children new? Or exactly like everyone else's?

Arguments by analogy do not hold up in science, you see.

New spieces are discover at a tremendous rate- perhaps they've only recenrly evolved.

"It IS their theory that NEW information is being added."

See above.

"You have misrepresented Evolutionist Science "

I see you recognize the percarious position you are in.
It is quite clear that my knowledge and understanding of the subject far exceeds your own. Until you free yourself of the chains of dogmatic belief, it will always be thus.

"Lets agree that Religious Fanatics are on their own and neither of us having any interest in them."

You, sir, ARE a religious fanatic, for you preach blind obidience to domga and denial of observed reality. Magical creation, indeed!
It is the misrepresentation of science by religious fanatics that brings me to this forum.

And science is a study, not a religion.

[BlackGuardXIII]

Science is the only religion where the followers make up the scripture, and they all have a slightly different take on it.

[Brocktoon]

Natural selection is the process by which evolution occurs. Mutations occur, making a species better or worse suited to survive, thus natural selection determines the advancement of a species in a certain direction.

If you guys are still denying evolution I must say that you are blatently and actively blinding yourself and I question your intellgence. Active ignorance. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I suggest if you wish to continue your futile attempt to reach the afterlife that you begin to claim that God set up the initial conditions for evolution or that he created the Big Bang. Because you cannot simply cite some rediculously incredulous book and think it will convince people of your ignorant preachings.

cabdirazzaq it is common sense that smaller stones [being less massive] will settle towards the shoreline and the larger stones farther back.

Because you cannot understand the nature and process by which species and bodily systems evolve does not invalidate them. "The eye is really complicated so that must mean that this completely plausible thing called 'evolution' is wrong and my idea of a God must be right, even though I have to suspend rationality to make it sound credible." it is bullshit. No other way to put it. It does not evolve from nothing. It happens of hundreds of thousands of years from the initial amino acids that formed from elemental chemicals in the massive bodies of water. Perhaps when seeking answers concerning evolutionary biology you should consult a Biologist and not an internet forum....

Meh, why do I bother... I wonder when/if life [of any sort] is discovered somewhere other than earth what your argument will be. What about the fossilized bacteria on Mars? I don't recall what was determined about those.

Natural Selection is not the mechanism Evolutionists are looking for.

To see who is 'Ignorant' about this or not - I suggest you write a thesis suggesting Natural Selection is the mechanism for Evolutionism.

Then present it to an Evolutionist Commitee...

.. When they are finished LAUGHING THEIR ARSES OFF at your paper... they will then ask you if you were either a) Frozen in a Glacier for the last 100 years OR you are the most ignorant human being on earth.

EVOLUTIONISTS DO NOT BELIEVE NATURAL SELECTION IS THE WAY EVOLUTION HAPPENED.

In fact,, its a PROBLEM to Evolutionists trying to justify their IMAGINATIVE idea that new genetics appeared spontaneously.

[Brocktoon]

(con't)
"This has NEVER been observed and (so far) there is no known way it can happen."

Are you a new person?
Are your children new? Or exactly like everyone else's?

Arguments by analogy do not hold up in science, you see.

New spieces are discover at a tremendous rate- perhaps they've only recenrly evolved.

"It IS their theory that NEW information is being added."

See above.

"You have misrepresented Evolutionist Science "

I see you recognize the percarious position you are in.
It is quite clear that my knowledge and understanding of the subject far exceeds your own. Until you free yourself of the chains of dogmatic belief, it will always be thus.

"Lets agree that Religious Fanatics are on their own and neither of us having any interest in them."

You, sir, ARE a religious fanatic, for you preach blind obidience to domga and denial of observed reality. Magical creation, indeed!
It is the misrepresentation of science by religious fanatics that brings me to this forum.

And science is a study, not a religion.

Im still trying to pin you down on what fundamentals we agree on Geckopelli:

Do we agree that new genes have never been known to occur in any species?

Do we agree there is no known way by which this can happen?

Please start by confirming your position on these two related questions.
If you dont understand the questions - just IM me and I will simplify them for you?

These are the two important questions.

So far, our leading Scientists do NOT observe new genes being created in any species.
So far, they do not know of a way in which this can happen.

If you disagree with this - please state your reasons why?

[geckopelli]

We agree on nothing- your are tainted by pesuppostion. You seek justifacation for your religious views, not objective Knowledge.

"So far, our leading Scientists do NOT observe new genes being created in any species.
So far, they do not know of a way in which this can happen."

The first part of this statement shows total lack of understanding of the theory of evolution entirely. Aprocess that occurs over many, many generations cannot be observed ver batim by a single individual.

The second part is a flat falsiity- We do, indeed, know how this can happen.
We call it Evolution.

Science in general has accepted biological evolution has a highly probable fact.
Biological organisms adapt to a changing evviroment. That't it.

The petty details are not all worked out; nor have the petty details of the Universe been yet worked out- yet E=MC2 can blow up the world.

In a lab, mutations on genes may indeed be induced through application of radiation.
The earth is, at all times, saturated with raditaion from sources within it'a crust, as well as constantly being bombarded with cosmic rays from etheral sources.

You see, it's not a simple matter depedent up on why frogs grow legs, nor a metter to be check out of hand. Evolution is the ONLY explation for the diversity of life on earth.

[meishka]

bumper sticker guy in forest gump said it best "shit happens" and good luck changing a stubborn 16 yr old u guys ;)

[BlackGuardXIII]

bumper sticker guy in forest gump said it best "shit happens" and good luck changing a stubborn 16 yr old u guys ;)
no one can change anyone

[geckopelli]

The point is not to convince brockton. He's a believer and as such of no interest to me. (On the other hand, if he cares to present a positive case for creationism, that would be interesting indeed!)

The point is to demonstrate to any possible readers that religion is not science, and science is not religion.

Science must be leraned from the ground up; religon purports to contain answers while deploring questions.

[BlackGuardXIII]

The point is not to convince brockton. He's a believer and as such of no interest to me. (On the other hand, if he cares to present a positive case for creationism, that would be interesting indeed!)

The point is to demonstrate to any possible readers that religion is not science, and science is not religion.

Science must be leraned from the ground up; religon purports to contain answers while deploring questions.
There is far too much dogma and faith in science for me these days.
I know of many accepted and firmly held scientific theories that are dead wrong, but they cling to them anyway.

[geckopelli]

If by "they" you mean scienec enthusiast- perhaps.

But I'd ask you to state a "firmly held scientific theories that [is] dead wrong".

I know of no such.

[Brocktoon]

We agree on nothing- your are tainted by pesuppostion. You seek justifacation for your religious views, not objective KnowledgeNice insult posts as usual...

"So far, our leading Scientists do NOT observe new genes being created in any species.
So far, they do not know of a way in which this can happen."

The first part of this statement shows total lack of understanding of the theory of evolution entirely. Aprocess that occurs over many, many generations cannot be observed ver batim by a single individual.
So you ARE agreeing this has never been observed. Good. We can start there.
We can discuss reasons why its never been observed later .. but for step one - we are agreeing it has NEVER been observed.


The second part is a flat falsiity- We do, indeed, know how this can happen.
We call it Evolution.You need to write a report and submit it to leading Evolutionists because they will clearly state there is NO KNOWN MECHANISM by which a NEW GENE can spontaneously create itself.

What you just said is - you are so sure it 'must have happened once' that you believe (by faith) that it 'Can Happen'.

You clearly stated this is your logic.


Science in general has accepted biological evolution has a highly probable fact.
Biological organisms adapt to a changing evviroment. That't it.Your making an argument called 'An appeal to Authority (or Majority)'
The problem is - you will change your 'evidence' based on majority opinions?

Latest Surveys show a MAJORITY of Scientists believeing 'Some Type' of Intelligent Design was behind Evolution.
(and these are the EVOLUTIONIST Scientists!)

So your now willing to agree ID is behind life on Earth?

You then tried to change the subject by replacing 'New Genes' with 'Biological Adaptation.
We are not discussing biological adaptation (which involves the LOSS or exchange of ALREADY EXISTING Genes.

Nice try.

I will be happy to ALSO discuss 'biological adaptation' (which includes your nose running during winter or white camoflague hair ALREADY included in an animals genetics.

Until then - we are discussing your belief that new genes spontaneously occur (despite our agreement that this has NEVER been observed and there is no known way by which it can)

The petty details are not all worked out; nor have the petty details of the Universe been yet worked out- yet E=MC2 can blow up the worldYour entitled to believe that the very mechanism for this theory is something 'Petty'.


In a lab, mutations on genes may indeed be induced through application of radiation.
The earth is, at all times, saturated with raditaion from sources within it'a crust, as well as constantly being bombarded with cosmic rays from etheral sources.Your making a good argument AGAINST New Genetic information by Mutation.
Genetics Mutations are indeed observed and heres the conclusion, everytime, without fail:

Genetic Mutations are VIRTUALLY ALWAYS BAD.

The occasional one is Neutral.

So even though mutations are lethal, negative or at best neutral - you continue to think yourself wise to 'believe' they used to be good and helpful?

You see, it's not a simple matter depedent up on why frogs grow legs, nor a metter to be check out of hand. Evolution is the ONLY explation for the diversity of life on earth.An Intelligent Designer is on option chosen by many of our leading Scientific investigators.

Clearly you have decided to Close your mind to one thing only.
Good luck with that!

Funny thing though.. a real Scientist once told me that when in his lab, the most 'Scientific' thing he can do is 'accept ANYTHING as being 'possible' - therefore separating his opinion, beliefs or feelings from contaminating the pure, unbiased work.

I guess you would disagree with him.
Thats ok.

[geckopelli]

[QUOTE=Brocktoon]Nice insult posts as usual...

The insult is you pretending that your religion has a basis in science.
You have yet to address anything I've stated directly.


"So you ARE agreeing this has never been observed.
We can discuss reasons why its never been observed later .. but for step one - we are agreeing it has NEVER been observed."

Your lack of perspective is appaliing. It's you who believe in magic.
Again, there is no magical trasformation. It is a slow, gradual process.
But the results are all around us. Anyone can see them.
Again, I urge you to learn the theory of evolution.

"You need to write a report and submit it to leading Evolutionists because they will clearly state there is NO KNOWN MECHANISM by which a NEW GENE can spontaneously create itself."

As I've stated, the general theory of evolution is accepted by all reputable scientist. They contiune to argue and research the various petty mechanism involved. Only creationist think the structure of science rest upon a single detail. Yet they provide NOT ONE SINGLE DETAIL to "prove" thier ridiculous assumption of a magical creature.

Your failure to hold yourself to the standard you hold others to labels you a hypocrite.

"What you said is that you are so sure it 'must have happened once' that you believe (by faith) that it 'Can Happen.

This IS what you are stating."

put no words in my mouth, child. On subjects of science, I say exactly what I mean. Only believers have need of subtrefige and misdirection.

"Your making an argument called 'An appeal to Authority (or Majority)'
The problem is - you will change your 'evidence' based on majority opinions."

Bullshit!
Everything I've stated comes from observable fact. You, on the other hand, work from ignorant assumption. Not to mention flat lies.

"Latest Surveys show a MAJORITY of Scientists believeing 'Some Type' of Intelligent Design was behind Evolution.
(and these are the EVOLUTIONIST Scientists!)"

The meaning of this is so far beyond your juvenille comprehension of science that I doubt I can explain it to you. You lack the basic understanding of the nature of reality. No scientist mistakes his personal beliefs for objective reality. That's left to the religious.

"You then tried to change the subject by replacing 'New Genes' with 'Biological Adaptation.
We are not discussing biological adaptation (which involves the LOSS or exchange of ALREADY EXISTING Genes.

Nice try."

Don't be a fool! Your word games are meaningless.
The fossil record belies you.
Explain how your reverened adam and eve produced white, black, brown, red and yellow children WITHOUT mutations. But of course, your answer is "magic:.

"Your entitled to believe that the very mechanism for this theory is something 'Petty'."

Belief is your tool, not a tool of science. The fact that you don't understand the proper use of the term in a scientific context just demonstrates your lack of understandting.


"Your making a good argument AGAINST New Genes.
Genetics Mutations are indeed observed and heres the conclusion, everytime, without fail:

Genetic Mutations are VIRTUALLY ALWAYS BAD.

The occasional one is Neutral."

So even though mutations are lethal, negative or at best neutral - you continue to think yourself wise to 'believe' they used to be good and helpful?"

This is just plain ignorant.

a genetic mutation that is "positive" is a low probability event. But they happen. if they occured at a greater rate, life would be chaotic and unable to proceed. Don't mistake your lack of understanding and knowledge for reality.

"Clearly you have decided to Close your mind to one thing only.
Good luck with that!"

Ignorant hypocrit!

I dare you to pitch a case for creation.

[BlackGuardXIII]

If by "they" you mean scienec enthusiast- perhaps.

But I'd ask you to state a "firmly held scientific theories that [is] dead wrong".

I know of no such.
The theory that is taught which describes the last ice age. Totally ludicrous.
There is a veritable treasure chest of easily accessible evidence that there was a very serious global cataclysm at the time the Mammoths, etc. went extinct.
Yet the gradual, nonthreatening version is still taught. It is BS in the extreme.

[geckopelli]

You are mistaking state of the art for belief. Theories are just that; they are not dogmatic belief.
They roll with the punches or are eventually demolished by factual observation.

The subject is currently a matter of debate between various sciences.

Also, it's a soft science, not a hard one. It cannot be mathematically described.

It's a matter of proabilities.

[Brocktoon]

Geckopelli,

Im a little confused why you chose to make personal condemnations and general statements?

we are both agreeing that genetic information exists, and that means it 'appeared' somewhere along the line.

However, you seem to be adamant that it continued to spontaneously appear over and over and over again.

At least Creationists only ask for new genetic information to appear ONCE.
Creationists attribute it to a Cause.

YOU however, believe that New Genetic information is A VERY HIGH PROBABILITY EVENT (in the past) and happens BILLIONS OF TIMES over BILLIONS OF YEARS!!?!

And even more unscientific - you actually believe it happens by CHANCE, WITHOUT any Intelligent Cause.

Wow!

So, what part of your belief is 'Scienctific' again?

Oh.. you mean the part where you believe in things that have never been observed, go contrary to things which are observed, and for which there is absolutely no explanation.

Read my post carefully.
You will see I am very clearly and accurately representing YOUR position.

If you feel 'Insulted' by YOUR position - dont blame me, Im NOT flaming you.

These ARE your beliefs.

[Sera Michele]

People, people...

The theory of evolution is very logical, and just as worthy (if not more) of acceptance than the theory of creation. In fact, there are many who accept the theory that still believe in god.

There is nothing wrong with believing the scientific theory of evolution. Anyone who claims there is more evidence of the theory of creation is just blinded by religious bias. And anyone who cliams that the theory of evolution isn't scientific needs to just be laughed at, because they have no idea what they are talking about.

You are never going to get through to people like Brocktoon, who's brains just hit a brick wall when considering an existance without a higher being. He has a habit of twisting the logical and rational to fit his views. What he doesn't realise, though, is it is glaringly obvious to his audience...

The theory and process of evolution is still being studied, worked on, and developed. We learn more about genetics, biology, geology, and the universe every day. This theory, and science in general, allows for us to expand our knoweldge. Encourages us to expand our knowledge.

To me, the theory is more believable than something written down by man thousands of years ago, before we knew even half of what we know today about our biology, our earth, and our universe.

Believe what you want, but don't fool yourself.

[geckopelli]

Brockton,

since you keep trying to apply concepts that don't fit, how about some math?

The difference between all life forms on earth is never greater than a 4% differerantiation.

Now calculate the possible life forms WITHOUT your "new genes".

the answer is mind boggling.

I have repeated that these are all low-probability events, yet you keep trying to put words in my mouth, and worst, credit YOUR assinine statements to me.
When you attempt to assign your beliefs to me- you've clearly lost the debate.

Sera,
Brockton is a deluded dupe of the church. One more casualty.
what he believes is of no account, for it collapses in the face of reality.

But education behooves me to fight the ingnorant decievers that actively try to undermine human progress and knowledge. He isn't the first religious fanatic to drown under an onslaught of facts in this forum. And he won't be the last.

Note that he assume me to be an atheist.

Also note that he is exactly like Bush in his approach. Lies and evasions.

[Brocktoon]

You know Evolutionism has failed when you read the previous two posts.
They are nothing more than Assertions followed by personal denouncements.

Has either of them produced any evidence of new genetic information being created in lifeforms.
No.

Has either of them given a mechanism by which this could occur?
No

Geckopelli attempts to sound 'Sciency' by lobbing about some percentages (based on presumptions).

Probably the best analogy might be Mr. Fords Creations.

Observe everything from a Ford Festiva to a Ford F350.

The Fact is - almost all vehicles are made up of the exact same things.
Steel,
Aluminum,
Plastic,
Etc

Doesnt matter if its a Ford Truck or a Ford Go-Cart.

[Heck.. this apply's to almost every vehicle from Submariines to Airplanes]

But further to that... Ford used the same fundamental designs for the Festiva and the Pick-up.
Yes, one is bigger and has different angles of the frame.
But they all have a Chassis.

Its not like Ford was making cars with Chassis, then when a truck was to be built he invented some completely different concept.
"Cant use Chassis.. thats for Cars"

So when you realise that basically ALL lifeforms on Earth are made from the same things, Carbon, Cellulose, etc -
OR
When you see that most everything uses a 'Ball in Socket' for movement...

.. Think about where you have seen this before?

Intelligent Design.

Now for Mr.Geckopellis sake - The Creationist view is that ALL genetic information was created ONCE.
All cominations of this are seen today, descending from that pool.

I realise you believe genetic information has been ADDED Billions of times over billions of years.
Your perfectly entitled to imagine that happened.
So far, there is no known way it could have happened.
In your case, I guess you insist it 'Must' have.
Thats cool.

Just dont blame your beliefs on Science.

[geckopelli]

Evolution stands established as the best available explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

You've been reduced to talking about cars, for Christ sake!

You stand defeated- a unworthy opponent.

Now, on to other matters.

"The Creationist view is that ALL genetic information was created ONCE."

Present some evidence, please.

How was this creation of a very complexed system accomplished without evolution?

But I warn you, if you say "it's in the bible", you'll label yourself an idiot.

[Brocktoon]

Here is why:

Because we observe an enormous pool of Working Ordered Information.

We compare that to all know examples of Working Orderd Information.

All others have an Intelligent Designer as their Cause.

Suck on that for a while Gecko

[Sera Michele]

Are you saying that because humans have created stuff that must mean some being created humans?

[geckopelli]

So you admit you have NO evidence. Evolution discredits creationism yet again.

Alas, you are, after all, an ignorant blind believer. I guess I was mistaken when I thought I saw a glimmer of hope for you.

Let's make it clear: you equate your childish, unsubstantiated belief that stands without any shred of eveidence whatsoever with the structure of Science which is all of a piece and built of millions of observations over hundreds of years?

Are you really that concieted?
Or merely gullible and unthinking?

[strawpuppy]

I believe there is a middle way in this dillema...That is we created ourselves, "The universal consciousness" That our end and our begining is one and the same thing...It all comes from the one thing called "it" that the brains of our current civilisation are trying desperately to uncover...

Somehow we all seem to know instinctively that "it" is within ourselves...

strawpup
.

[geckopelli]

He saying since he can't understand something, it can't be so.

[Brocktoon]

In a way yes.

Its called Scientific Method.

You observe, compare and repeat.

Since none of us was alive to observe what happened in the beginning we have the next option.
Find other examples of working ordered information [those examples in which we do know the beginning] and if we repeatedly see the same 'cause'...

.. Then, based on what we know, we say "Scientifically Speaking, Ordered working and complex information comes from Intelligent Designers".

Now, you CAN believe that working ordered information spontaneously assembles itself through 'Chance' or 'Probablility'.
Thats fine.
But its not based on what we know (observe) in the world around us.

[geckopelli]

Do not compound your errors by misrepresenting the scientific method.

Evolution goes beyond eyesight.
It goes beyond biology.

Start with Cosmology and Chemistry, move to Relativity and Quantum physics. Get a base in these, and you will begin to understand the nature of the univesrse.

Evolution is the way of the Universe- beginning with the simplicty of the big-bang and accumulting in the complexity of the intelligent mind.

[geckopelli]

A philosophical reflection:

The first thing the bible does is describe the big-bang; nothing evolving into something.
"Let there be light" and the evolution of the Universe begins.

[Brocktoon]

Why do you keep bringing the Bible into this?

Why do you keep pointing to broad metaphysical concepts?

Why do you keep making personal denouncements.

Are you afraid of discussing the real hard scienctific method - or are you just admitting there is no scientific evidence Evolutionism works?

[POPthree13]

Here is why:

Because we observe an enormous pool of Working Ordered Information.


We do observe an enormous pool of Working Ordered Information, science has called this process evolution.

Do we know the cause? Not exactly, but the overriding mechanism is survival of the fitest. New gene combinations are created ALL the time. Every organism has some unique assembly of genes, which is why we can map them to an individual. Now it is true that we do not know EXACTLY how an entirely new gene is added to the code, but we see malformations all the time of people with an extra gene or missing a gene.


We compare that to all know examples of Working Orderd Information.

All others have an Intelligent Designer as their Cause.

Suck on that for a while Gecko
"All other" what? I do not know the 'cause' of evolution, and no one else does either. Anyone's 'cause' is just as good as anyone else's. Yousay it was god, someone else says it was the easter bunny. Your both just as right. I thought the argument here was wether or not evolution takes place. Have you conceded this point Brock?

[geckopelli]

You've already admitted you've no evidence for your case, and you've already demonstrated you lack a basic grasp of science.

As for the bible- are you trying to claim that creationism is YOUR idea and not from the bible? How far out in left field are you?

You would be wise to stand down, least you look more foolishly self-righteous than you already do.

You've become boringly repititous.

[strawpuppy]

Think you need a link here to some brains who have busted me out of the equasion.......and taught me more than they could ever know....
Try starting this topic on here (it's a great place to air any theories you have)
WARNING, only for the brave of heart and those wishing to get educated.....

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/index.php? (Try Pseudophilosophy first!)

Reckon this will get some cool insights into some of these very good posts so far made.....

strawpup
also some links that are good:




Join Date: Feb 20th, 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 260
Here you go, have fun!

Scientific:
http://www.brainconnection.com/
http://cognews.com/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
http://www.hawking.org.uk/home/hindex.html
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html
http://www.neurology.org/
http://www.neurologychannel.com/
http://www.astrobiology.com/
http://www.universetoday.com/
http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/main1.shtml
http://www.med.harvard.edu/AANLIB/home.html

religious:
http://www.digiserve.com/mystic/

Humanities:
http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/
http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/
http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html
http://www.iep.utm.edu/
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/
http://www.psychology.org/
http://www.friesian.com/
http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/

Misc:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.promo.net/pg/
http://www.bartleby.com/
http://www.netlibrary.com/Gateway.aspx
http://www.librarypoint.org/netlibrary_signup.asp
__________________
"But nothing is sweeter than to occupy a lofty sanctuary of the mind,
Well fortified with the teachings of the wise,
Where we may look down on others as they stumble along,
Vainly searching for the true path of life..."
-Lucretius

[Brocktoon]

We do observe an enormous pool of Working Ordered Information, science has called this process evolution.
Putting the cart before the horse.

Think about what you just said Pop.... You are insisting that evolution caused ordered information because you insist that evolution caused ordered information, therefore evolution can cause ordered information.

Lets play Scientist for a few minutes.

The Scientist will tell us to be 'The Man from Mars'. In other words.. lets completely separate ANY cultural bias or assumptions.

You just showed up on Earth.
Youve never heard of 'Evolutionism'' or 'Creation' etc etc.

You cant go back in time to figure why these living creatures have very complex, ordered and working information in the first place.

So, the very best you can do is find OTHER examples of working ordered information and see what caused them.

You find some books (far far less complex information than DNA but they have to do).
You discover it was organised and created by Intelligent Design.

Computers - ID

Vehicles - ID

Even something like a Painting - ID

In fact... you cant find ANY examples of complex ordered design existing without an Intelligent Designer behind them.

So you are faced with a Scientific Conclusion - To the best of your knowledge - Complex Ordered and working information IS Caused by Intelligent Design.

It really is that simple.

Its becoming difficult to dumb this down any more folks!

Do we know the cause? Not exactly, but the overriding mechanism is survival of the fitest.
Absolutely NOT.

Im not giving you my 'Opinion' - Im stating for a fact that this is NOT ACCEPTED by ANY Creationists, Evolutionists or anyone who understands Darwinism and why it IS REJECTED ABOUT 80 YEARS ago as completely impossible as ANY KIND OF MECHANISM.

For Shits Sakes People - READ A BOOK ABOUT YOUR EVOLUTIONISM WRITTEN IN THE LAST 50 YEARS PLEASE!?


New gene combinations are created ALL the time. Every organism has some unique assembly of genes, which is why we can map them to an individual.

Finally we agree on something!
PRE-EXISTING Genes are Combined into Unique combinations.
Yes they are!

This is at least one good reason why NEW genes are not needed.


Now it is true that we do not know EXACTLY how an entirely new gene is added to the code,
So far neither you or anyone else has ANY idea how new genetic information is created.

I believe Gould once came the closest to ANY form of theory regarding ANY kind of Mechanism - A MIRACLE.

but we see malformations all the time of people with an extra gene or missing a gene.
You dont see them 'All the time'.. but when you do they are almost always extremely destructive and often LETHAL to the organism.

You are also refering to MUTATION of ALREADY EXISTING Genes.
NOT
I Repeat
NOT New Genes

[Im pretty sure we all agree that a damaged Gene is not exactly 'New Information anymore than the word 'Eolutionism' is New information because the 'V' is missing?]


"All other" what? I do not know the 'cause' of evolution, and no one else does either. Anyone's 'cause' is just as good as anyone else's.
No.
Someone who says the cause is 'Random Chance' brought about by 'Accident' does NOT have as good a cause as anyone else.

Theres is not based on observation of the world around us.

You say it was god, someone else says it was the easter bunny. Your both just as right.
This does not work.

I say that common sense and facts tell us it was an Intelligent Designer [Whether we like it or not]

Suggesting the Easter Bunny is behind designing ordered information doesnt work since The Bunny appears to be an EFFECT of that Design.

I thought the argument here was wether or not evolution takes place. Have you conceded this point Brock?
The original topic was about 'Darwinism', which, so far, you seem to think is still Valid?

Based on what we know about the observable and testable world around us - Evolutionism COULD have happened - but the laws tell us it must be done by Intelligent Design.

Some in here (like Geckopelli) believe that brand new information has been miraculously created MILLIONS of times over MILLIONS of days.

At least most Creationists level it off at just 6 days!!

[geckopelli]

"dumb it down"! You're already the the low man on the totem pole!

give us a break!

Popthree13 has an excellent understanding of science and physics in particular.

"I say that common sense and facts tell us it was an Intelligent Designer [Whether we like it or not]"

Common sense against knowledge!

What a joke!

Magic from a mysterious magician in the sky or Evolution?

You're kicking your god in the teeth by deny the magnificence of reality, and scoffing at the intelligence he gave you to boot.

[Brocktoon]

You've already admitted you've no evidence for your case, and you've already demonstrated you lack a basic grasp of science.
Why are you claiming Ive 'Admitted' having no evidence when I stated scientific evidence.

i.e. Observable and Retestable instances of working and orderly information are found to have an Intelligent Designer.

That IS the basis of Scientific Method, by the way.

As for the bible- are you trying to claim that creationism is YOUR idea and not from the bible? How far out in left field are you?
Im not sure why you keep ramming the Bible into this part of the conversation but Intelligent Design/ers Creating the Universe has been standard in human history.

You would be wise to stand down, least you look more foolishly self-righteous than you already do.

You've become boringly repititous.
What a bizarre thing for you to say.

[Brocktoon]

"dumb it down"! You're already the the low man on the totem pole!

give us a break!

Popthree13 has an excellent understanding of science and physics in particular.

"I say that common sense and facts tell us it was an Intelligent Designer [Whether we like it or not]"

Common sense against knowledge!

What a joke!

Magic from a mysterious magician in the sky or Evolution?

You're kicking your god in the teeth by deny the magnificence of reality, and scoffing at the intelligence he gave you to boot.

Geckopelli..

Could you please stop spamming these boards with Denouncements with no real purpose other than to insult.

Thanks

[geckopelli]

Your the one spamming this board.

You've lost the debate, yet you keep rreiterating the same things over again.

You insulted everyone on this thread with your dumming down comment.

You never presnted one piece of evidence for your creator yet you insist you did.

You belong on the christian forum.

You represent the scientific method as argument through analogy and "common sense".
A flat lie.

Grow-up, would you?

[Brocktoon]

Your the one spamming this board.

You've lost the debate, yet you keep rreiterating the same things over again.

You insulted everyone on this thread with your dumming down comment.

You never presnted one piece of evidence for your creator yet you insist you did.

You belong on the christian forum.

You represent the scientific method as argument through analogy and "common sense".
A flat lie.

Grow-up, would you?
Geckopelli.. Dont worry about 'how im doing' or 'what I am'.
You shouldnt get so worked up that you need to remind me of your opinion every other post.
Just post your scientific evidence and let the chips fall where they may.

Sorry but I cant recall (or find) where you gave me evidence that New Genes appear in organisms?

I think you agreed that already existing genes can be scrambled and or damaged?

Do you know of any case where new genetic information appears?

Please answer the actual question?

Thanks

[Sera Michele]

Broktoon insists that because the things man has created is an example of intelligent design than men must have been created by intelligent design. That is faulty logic.

[geckopelli]

He also insist on "new" genes, when it's been explained that, although viable genetic mutatins DO occur, none are required to produce a heretofore unseen species- which renders his concept moot.

In any case, the fossil record shows ample evidence of "new" speicies coming- and going.

But brockton denies the statistical and quantum nature of reality, and the age of the Universe, as well as the existence of the fossil record.
He can perhaps be forgiven for his ignorance of the first two; they are matters of an esoteric nature. But to deny the latter two is to wallow in ignorance indeed.

[Brocktoon]

Broktoon insists that because the things man has created is an example of intelligent design than men must have been created by intelligent design. That is faulty logic.
This is not faulty logic. [although you deliberately changed the logic and attributed that to me Sarah!]

This is how Science works.

Nobody claims they can go back in time and absolutely know.

So we have no choice but to Observe, Record, Repeat, Compare.

We are left with 'By this - its the most likely explanation we know of'

You DO NOT look for things 'Man Made'. [I did NOT say that]

You simply look for working, ordered and complex information.
IF it turns out that Intelligent Design is behind these things (whether its man, animal or machine has NO matter)
Then
You DO conclude that - to the best of our knowledge based on facts and observations - then Intelligent Design is the known cause of working ordered information.

Its THAT SIMPLE.

Again... IF you choose to believe otherwise - feel free, however you are basing that on your 'feelings' or 'hopes' and not based on Scientific Investigation.

Please do not deliberately re-arrange my logic so you can create a problem.
Thanks.

[Brocktoon]

He also insist on "new" genes, when it's been explained that, although viable genetic mutatins DO occur, none are required to produce a heretofore unseen species- which renders his concept moot.
No. You did not explain when and where viable genetic mutations occur.
Yes. They are required to create a new species. [See. biology 101]

You incorrectly applied the word 'moot' into all that too.

In any case, the fossil record shows ample evidence of "new" speicies coming- and going.
The Fossil record shows Species. Period. Nothing More.

Believing they were morphing one-into-another is entirely your own belief which is based entirely on you own imagination.

But brockton denies the statistical and quantum nature of reality, and the age of the Universe, as well as the existence of the fossil record.
You cant 'Deny' the age of the Universe since know one knows (or could know) the age of the Universe.

You know I dont 'Deny' the Fossil Record, and yet you just deliberately stated to others in this forum I do?

He can perhaps be forgiven for his ignorance of the first two; they are matters of an esoteric nature. But to deny the latter two is to wallow in ignorance indeed.
Well the age of the Universe has absolutely nothing to do with animals creating new genes inside themselves.

Fortunately I dont deny the fossil record (which is the final nail in the coffin for the 'gradual new genes' believers).

[Sera Michele]

This is not faulty logic. [although you deliberately changed the logic and attributed that to me Sarah!]

This is how Science works.

Nobody claims they can go back in time and absolutely know.

So we have no choice but to Observe, Record, Repeat, Compare.

We are left with 'By this - its the most likely explanation we know of'

You DO NOT look for things 'Man Made'. [I did NOT say that]

You simply look for working, ordered and complex information.
IF it turns out that Intelligent Design is behind these things (whether its man, animal or machine has NO matter)
Then
You DO conclude that - to the best of our knowledge based on facts and observations - then Intelligent Design is the known cause of working ordered information.

Its THAT SIMPLE.

Again... IF you choose to believe otherwise - feel free, however you are basing that on your 'feelings' or 'hopes' and not based on Scientific Investigation.

Please do not deliberately re-arrange my logic so you can create a problem.
Thanks. The only examples of FACTUAL intelligent design you have given are from man-made objects. Cars, books, etc...And you are trying to use that as a scientific example for creationism. But it is faulty logic. Just because human creations are examples of intelligent design that doesn't mean everything has been created by intelligent design. And we can both agree that there are more things in the universe that haven't been created by humans than those that have. So the only factual creations of "intelligent design" we know of are man-made and a small minority of the things in the universe. The others are just speculation. And just because a small number of man-made things seem to evolve through intelligent design doesn't mean EVERYTHING has.

And besides, I don't know what makes you more qualified than the scientists of history to say that evolution is based on "feelings" and "hopes" rather than scientific theory.



Probably the best analogy might be Mr. Fords Creations.

Observe everything from a Ford Festiva to a Ford F350.

The Fact is - almost all vehicles are made up of the exact same things.
Steel,
Aluminum,
Plastic,
Etc

Doesnt matter if its a Ford Truck or a Ford Go-Cart.

[Heck.. this apply's to almost every vehicle from Submariines to Airplanes]

But further to that... Ford used the same fundamental designs for the Festiva and the Pick-up.
Yes, one is bigger and has different angles of the frame.
But they all have a Chassis.

Its not like Ford was making cars with Chassis, then when a truck was to be built he invented some completely different concept.
"Cant use Chassis.. thats for Cars"

So when you realise that basically ALL lifeforms on Earth are made from the same things, Carbon, Cellulose, etc -
OR
When you see that most everything uses a 'Ball in Socket' for movement...

.. Think about where you have seen this before?

Intelligent Design.

As you can see I didn't misrepresent you. You were using this example of man-made objects to point out that the rest of the world must have sprung forth from intelligent design. It is flawed logic, but the illogical ones don't usually know when they are being illogical...

The "ball in socket" design is here in most surviving animals because it worked, and that animals without it aren't here because they didn't work. It is a pretty simple concept. We use the same basic design for our cars because they work, and the things that don't work wouldn't be productive to use or make. It wouldn't be successful. Just because all life on earth are made from the same basic things doesn't mean that there is some creator behind it. It just means that those things worked. They were successful. And that is why you see life on earth made of those things. Life wouldn't be life here without those elements.

I'm no expert on evolution, but at least I can understand the basic concept. You, on the other hand, twist logic and reality to fit your view of the world. All life being made of the same basic elements in no way is a show of intelligent design. It is a show of the success of those elements, or of a paticular body structure, etc...

And anyone with more knowledge on the subject please correct any misstatements on the subject. I never learned about evolution in school, since I went to a private baptist school. All my knowledge on the subject is pretty elementary. But I see and understand the truth and logic in the theory.

[Brocktoon]

Sera..

The ONLY thing you are saying to me is that 'Just because most all working ordered information has Intelligent Design as its cause DOESNT MEAN IT ALWAYS WAS THAT WAY"

WOW!

Great!

Guess what.. Just because water freezes at 0 DOESNT MEAN Water ALWAYS Must have frozen at Zero!

Wow.. guess what - I CLEARLY explained to you that nobody can know FOR ABSOLUTE Certainy what has ALWAYS happened.

Further to that I EXPLAINED TO YOU that we have NO CHOICE but to use the world around us as a 'Control'.
[Unless you know of other dimensions?]

So this is why we say "Based on what we can observe, record and repeat.. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE... Ordered working information is caused by Intelligent Design.

Dont explain BACK TO ME what i CLEARLY explained to you.

I was NOT using example of man-made objects.
Are you READING??

I was using examples of ORDERED WORKING INFORMATION.

IF it turns out this is usually made by man, birds or machines then IT IS.

If it turns out there ARE NO EXAMPLES OF WORKING ORDERED DESIGN made by RANDOM CHANCE AND CHAOS ...

.. Then SUCK IT UP!

Too bad.. thats where the facts lay.

[Please do not waste more bandwidth with another genius theory stating that "ya.. but it might not always been that way"]

[Sera Michele]

I think you are going to have to more clearly define what you mean by "ordered working information" (considering a google has never seemed to have heard of the term) and then clearly state examples of this other than man-made things. If you can. And then explain why it has to be a caused strictly by intelligent design.

I never said "it might not always have been that way" I never even implied it. I don't think that the way things work has changed much over time, just that our understanding of the way things work has. And I clearly understand they difference between scientific fact and scientific theory. Scientific fact needs to be observable and repeatable, and obviously at the creation of our existance no one was there to take pictures...

But really, The only one who seems to understand you here is yourself. I am not exactly sure what point you are trying to make, and how it makes evolution unscientific and creationsim much more viable. I would also like to hear your scientific credentials, so we can know how seriously to take your opinion when you are saying something as ludacris as evolution not being scientific.

When you get onto something, brocktoon, you certainly don't like to let it go until you have made youself seem as ignorant, illogical, and thick-headed as an individual can be...

[Brocktoon]

OK Sera.. You asked for it.

Even though "Complex, Working, Orderly Information" should be fairly self-explanatory here are a few links explaining this further:

[Oh. and these are written by people with lots of Letters after their names]

http://www.santafe.edu/

http://necsi.org/guide/index.html

http://www.complex-systems.com/about.html

And my personal favourite:
http://www.iscid.org/complex-systems.php

There are many more of course, but those give you the basic idea.

One thing you can do all by yourself....

Look around your world for ANYTHING which 'has this stuff':

Working Order: Stuff is done in some pattern towards some purpose.

Complexity: Stuff that not only has LOTS of 'things' but where those Things are all related to and for each other.

Information: Stuff which can 'Tell other Stuff' what to do or tells other stuff important stuff to help it do more stuff. This might be 'words' but it could also be 'Codes' and even 'Symbols' or even 'Beeps'.

Now you can do this yourself at home!

Ok here is the really fun part Sera.... find out if you can learn how this stuff was MADE?

(If you dont know the cause - then it wont count ok)

Did the Wind make the Stuff?

Did a Machine make this stuff? (In that case see if you can find out what caused the machine to do that)

Did some beavers make this stuff?

Ok.. now once you have found out that some 'Designer' ask yourself this:

"Hmmm since all the other working ordered and complex information I see is caused by 'Authors' or 'Designers' - I wonder how THAT STuff was made?"

Yay!

[thumontico]

So, in other words, Sera has harmed Brocktoon's ego. Sera too, but is able to mask it in maturity.

I won't bother to read the context of you guys' ramblings, no doubt about claims that the world is really complex and that necessarily implies the existence of God. I will assume the links Brocktoon has provided are full of unfounded assertions and presuppositions, perhaps by accredited scholars, but equally susceptible to the desire to live on after death and then just as likely to make the case for faith.

Perhaps I am an atheist elitist, or maybe just reeeaaallly tired of this thread --- Evolution occured and too perhaps so did the Big Bang --- in any case, Creationists: you must adapt to reality. Realize that God created the Big Bang, it is equally unsusceptible to rationality.

[Brocktoon]

So, in other words, Sera has harmed Brocktoon's ego. Sera too, but is able to mask it in maturity.

I won't bother to read the context of you guys' ramblings, no doubt about claims that the world is really complex and that necessarily implies the existence of God. I will assume the links Brocktoon has provided are full of unfounded assertions and presuppositions, perhaps by accredited scholars, but equally susceptible to the desire to live on after death and then just as likely to make the case for faith.

Perhaps I am an atheist elitist, or maybe just reeeaaallly tired of this thread --- Evolution occured and too perhaps so did the Big Bang --- in any case, Creationists: you must adapt to reality. Realize that God created the Big Bang, it is equally unsusceptible to rationality.
So you are basically stating that you will accept Evolutionist Theory 'As Fact' and there will be NO discussion.
Further to that - you will not even entertain or grant validity to anything which questions it.

Good for you Thumotico!

I dont think I could have that kind of Faith!

[Brocktoon]

PS.. I had heard there were some people still holding to the 'Big Bang' Theory.
It seems you are one of them.

Must be getting lonely over there in the 'Big Bang' Camp, what with all the Scientists leaving nowadays?

[geckopelli]

Brockton,

The scientific method is not conclusion through analogous obsevation, as you state.
You need to go back to square one. Your 7th grade science teacher would give you an F- for such a badly distorted description. This misinterpretation is why all your arguments are pure crap.

As for having rendered your arguement moot, that Is exactly what has been done here.

You really need to grow-up and admit defeat
-----
Why is it you feel you need others to approve of your religion? Are you than of so little faith?
Wheather you act from pure ignorance or malice, I cannot say. But the insistence with which you cry for outside justifacation, coupled with your attempts to misconstrue and misinform others in the name of some holy crusade of ignorance and stagnation, leaves one to wonder if perhaps you are a member of the Bush administration!

[thumontico]

I do NOT accept anything in this objective reality experienced subjectively-invariably to be FACT. However, it is infinitely more likely that evolutionary theory is MORE accurate than Creationist theory.

Furthermore, scientific and metaphyical beginings have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread hence my desire to end the discussion, which could easily be done by not looking at this thread I suppose. But discussion of other things is desired.

The likelihood of creationism by a sentient being is as likely as a pink elephant defiling a log and thus inacting an equally bizzare means of initial life. However, not accepted by the majority of society it holds the same basic ideas--- something we cannot begin to understand in THIS life created the human race.

[Brocktoon]

Brockton,

The scientific method is not conclusion through analogous obsevation, as you state......
You have completely misused the word 'Analogy' [ironically, making your analogy about grading deliciously funny]

'Analogy' has nothing to do with anything discussed or proposed here. Where you even got that idea is bizarre.

Yes, Science uses 'Controls' as well as repeatable, observable events by which to find the cause of an unknown event.

Since you want to use the word Analogy - here IS one:

Say some Scientists find a black, sooty and smoke filled room somewhere.

They do not actually know why its black and smoke filled. No one was there to see what caused this.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD:

Scientists Oberserve that FIRES can cause the exact same conditions.
In fact, they can even re-create FIRE in a lab example and repeatedly get the exact same results as that mystery building.

They then 'conclude' based on what they know - FIRE is the most likely CAUSE of the Blackened, Sooty Smoke Filled Room.

Then Sera Michele arrives to announce that 'That doesnt mean ALL smoke must be created by FIRE!"

Then Geckopelli shows up to inform the Investigators that their comparison cases are only ANALOGIES (LOL!) and they are not 'SCientific!"

[Brocktoon]

I do NOT accept anything in this objective reality experienced subjectively-invariably to be FACT. However, it is infinitely more likely that evolutionary theory is MORE accurate than Creationist theory

Maybe one day you can explain why you have decided that Evolutionisms Creation Myth is MORE accurate than Creationist Theory.

You seem to be just showing up to inform us you have already made up your mind - but you are too 'weary' to bother sharing why.

Furthermore, scientific and metaphyical beginings have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread hence my desire to end the discussion, which could easily be done by not looking at this thread I suppose. But discussion of other things is desired.
Please feel free to post your ideas or 'other things' at Hipforums.

Simply interjecting your disatisfaction every so often and reminding us you like other stuff more is not helpful to anyone.

T he likelihood of creationism by a sentient being is as likely as a pink elephant defiling a log and thus inacting an equally bizzare means of initial life.
Simply comparing a concept to a ridiculous and childish concept does little to help anyone.

Let me try and see if it works for me:

"Thumbontico is just as likely to create an intelligent statement as a Monkey defiling a pile of leaves would create such an equally valid statement"

?

Nope that wasnt really helpful. In fact its nothing more than a 'Flame' with no other purpose than to insult.

However, not accepted by the majority of society it holds the same basic ideas--- something we cannot begin to understand in THIS life created the human race.
We Disagree.
It seem more and more apparent to me that this generation is closer and closer to understanding the mysteries of Creation than any other time in history.

[thumontico]

Ooo aren't you sassy...

So what you are saying is that the FIRE (evolution) caused the blackened appearance (life on earth) and then Sera Michele (Brocktoon) came and said that the perfectly reasonable explaination of FIRE (evolution) did not necessarily cause the blackened appearance (life on earth), in fact it could have been something else (God) and since it could have been something else (God), it definitely was. Then Brocktoon (Brocktoon) entered the room and realized he proved himself wrong?