Don´t remain tied, Darwin has lied

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

 

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.,

 

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.

 

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".

 

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

 

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

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

Excellent post.

- Laz

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Thumontico

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

Occam

 

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

 

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

 

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

Lostblackdog

Exactly

Occam

 

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 , if you're interested.

- Laz