Creationists dealt a blow

[lavikor201]

Why, I thank you random kind stranger :-[

lol, it was a compliment. :D

[جوري]

lol, it was a compliment. :D

I know.. and I have repped you for it :)

[lavikor201]

I know.. and I have repped you for it :)

Well I will just have to rep you back then. :D

[AB517]

I haven't read of any "natural means" that were actually verifiable beyond a reasonable doubt... I have already stated my concerns on where exactly evolution fails me, and don't care to resurrect a line of conversation that is already foreclosed...
When it comes down to it, both parties come pretty evenly matched... It just depends on which piecemeal story suits your fancy best! I don't find anything illogical in the Quran about the story of creation or our existence, that remotely hints at fairy tales... further more as evident by this verse

هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ {7}

[Pickthal 3:7] He it is Who hath revealed unto thee the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

That verse already speaks volumes to me, on what is a fundamental truth and what is meant in an allegorical sense..

A dear friend of mine is devoutly religious though not a Muslim-- and has a couple of doctorates, believes evolution to be the handy work of G-D-- I will not replace one gap with another on the account that it sounds better. To me the majority of evolutionists try by any means to disprove the existence of G-D.
If you put a couple of Apes to the back of us or in our future by some magic miracle it would still not explain away all this grandeur and intricacies... In its beginning and its end There will be Allah....
peace!

well put ... comes down to what you believe.

Only thing I disgree with this that evolutionist try diprove God. I think thats more of athist. I believe God made man ... I believe it looks like he did it through evolution. Thats it .. thats what I believe.

I agree totaly with your points here.
Nicely put too.

AB

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Mr. Baldy]

I call a spade a spade. Some folks don't like it when they suddenly realise people have a different world view. I stand by my words, his responses were literally dumb. Nice to see this thread go so far off topic...........

BTW, Since I was not refering to you, why do you feel the need to defend the person in question. Surely he can speak for himself! Or is it in fact you with more than 1 ID?

so rama1/2 u agree with me.

looks like someone has beef and u know theres only one civillised way to settle beef... yes a freestyle battle.

coz in islam we have the concept of brotherhood i dont know any of the brothers or sisters on this thread but im ready to die for them

[root]

Quote:
Originally Posted by root
I call a spade a spade. Some folks don't like it when they suddenly realise people have a different world view. I stand by my words, his responses were literally dumb. Nice to see this thread go so far off topic...........

BTW, Since I was not refering to you, why do you feel the need to defend the person in question. Surely he can speak for himself! Or is it in fact you with more than 1 ID?

Mr Baldy so rama1/2 u agree with me.

looks like someone has beef and u know theres only one civillised way to settle beef...

Beef?

yes a freestyle battle.

Sorry, break dancing went out in the 80's. mind u. Run DMC had some success a few years ago, but it quickly faded.

coz in islam we have the concept of brotherhood i dont know any of the brothers or sisters on this thread but im ready to die for them

Agreed, Adolf Hitler expressed a deep interest in Islam for the same reason. Thier apparent willingness to die so easily.

Way off topic though me thinks

[جوري]

Root, you should at least try to maintain some consistency. If we accept your claim that creationism is not a scientific theory, then no amount of evidence will ever deal a blow to creationism; no amount of 'transitional forms' will ever weaken creationism. It only would if creationism was a falsifiable scientific theory.

As for the discovery itself, this is nothing new and hardly differs from other species such as Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, Panderichthys, etc. - evidence which 'creationists' have already examined (eg.).

Regards

I think this post is sufficient a reply to the original, and with that we should close this thread, It has gotten much more attention than it deserves, it is becoming pedantic. I think the last thing anyone needs to do is keep feeding a histrionic Has-Been....

peace!

[Mr. Baldy]

Beef?



Sorry, break dancing went out in the 80's. mind u. Run DMC had some success a few years ago, but it quickly faded.



Agreed, Adolf Hitler expressed a deep interest in Islam for the same reason. Thier apparent willingness to die so easily.

Way off topic though me thinks

beef is when u have a grudge with someone.
im not talking about break dancing i mean a rap battle.

i dont understand how u can put ur faith so willingly into a theory, which as rama pointed out, is tautologically unprovable. this is, to me at least, completley irrational

[Umar001]

I've tried to keep away from this thread, but this is getting sloppy. From personal compliments to personal jabs in the space of 5 posts.

Let's see if the mood changes?

[ranma1/2]

..

i dont understand how u can put ur faith so willingly into a theory, which as rama pointed out, is tautologically unprovable. ..

No its not tautaology it is shown to be the most accurate scientific theory as to why there is variety in the spieces. What i pointed out was your misconception that if something is a theory it is somehow not valid in science as you seem to suggest.

Now look up and come back with what a scientific theory is. Post a link to a reasonable source that you have read if you want.

[lavikor201]

No its not tautaology it is shown to be the most accurate scientific theory as to why there is variety in the spieces. What i pointed out was your misconception that if something is a theory it is somehow not valid in science as you seem to suggest.

Now look up and come back with what a scientific theory is. Post a link to a reasonable source that you have read if you want.

Stay with me ranma. Either way you look at an apple, whether it was made for people or people were made for it, it shows awareness of human needs, and the human body shows awareness of what the apple offers. No matter which "adapted" to which, the question is: the ability to adapt, the fact that the body knew exactly how to digest those apples, how to grow in order to reach the apples, what limbs it needed to reach the apples, etc -- was that accident or intelligence?

That is the issue here - there are only two possibilities: (a) accident or (b) intelligence.

To say that it adapted or evolved just evades the question: adaptation and evolution are either accident or intelligence. Either a string of billions and trillions of perfectly aligned accidents or there is something in the organism that knows what direction it needs to evolve.

And don't forget - the organism needs the ability to be able to "evolve" to begin with. If we were all made of stone we couldn’t "evolve" lungs, etc.

So the proof still remains: the perfectly designed and aligned natural phenomenon could not have, by any reasonable odds, accidentally ended up this way.

And the only alternative to accident is intelligence.

It doesn't matter if the apple "adapted" for people or people "adapted" for the apple. Either way, accident is beyond believable odds.

What is referred to as "likelihood" of life evolving, still amounts to staggering odds. The numbers are too large to describe.

The fact that elements got together and life came from them is itself ridiculous by accident.

And the fact that life "knows" how to evolve is also impossible by accident.

You may not realize the level of coincidence that is needed to do this. Did your stomach "evolve" before the lining that protects it from the acids? If so, it would have been destroyed after the first meal. If the lining evolved before the acids, then nature must also be endowed with prophecy, because it was burdened for millions of years with some useless lining, until the acid evolved.
The chicken egg needed to be the right thickness - not too thick and not too thin - to allow the development and hatching of the chicken, from the start. Or else even one generation of chicken would not have been able to survive.

And even if, theoretically, all this did evolve, the fossil evidence would have to show the billions and billions of species that did not survive - the "non fittest" that fell by the wayside. For every survivable species, you are talking about countless non-survivors. The odds are ridiculous. And the fossil record so far has ONLY COME UP WITH VIABLE LIFE FORMS.

We still have no answer to the question; How does anyone account for the staggering odds of life forming by accident?

What the scientists are saying in essence is, "Yes, but it could happen."
Well, that is of course true, but then you would be unable to prove anything at all, because similarly, "It could always happen."

If G-d Himself would come and reveal Himself to the entire world an say "I am Hashem", that, too, by atheist standard wouldn't prove anything because a happy string of coincidences could account for natural sounds and sights that happened to have coincidently united at the right time and place to cause such a phenomenon.
It could happen.

Proof, in any other context other than atheists talking about G-d, is not expected to reach the level of absolute impossibility. There is no such thing as absolute impossibility. Anything "could" happen, as long as it is not an absurd concept that cannot exist (such as a triangle that is round).
You would send someone to the electric chair if you were a juror and the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the strangled victim's neck. A video of the murder, and perhaps 20 witnesses would make the verdict a no brainier.

But witnesses could lie, a video could be forged - one may even go so far as to claim that some technology exists out there that we are as yet unaware of that synthesized such a realistic video.

And please note, that there is no proof anywhere that says two people cannot have the same fingerprints. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in nature at all that precludes duplicate fingerprints. How in the world would my fingers know, when I am born, the patterns of fingerprints that have already been "placed" on the fingers of every other human being? How do my fingers know which fingerprints are "used" already so as to avoid duplicating them?

The only reason that we assume - yes, assume! - that two sets of fingerprints cannot be alike, or that two snowflakes cannot be alike, is because there are so many billions of possible fingerprint patterns, and snowflake patterns, that the odds of two like patterns existing are so staggering that we don’t even consider it a possibility.
Even though it could happen.

So if you are a juror and the defense attorney claims that nobody "proved" that the fingerprints on the victim's neck were really the defendants - because it could happen that by coincidence two identical sets exist, and that you can't "prove" that the 20 witnesses told the truth (they could have all lied and coincidently made up the same exact details in the story), and that you cant "prove" that the video cannot be faked, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Even though it all "could happen".

And you would send the defendant to his death, because you saw proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that this man is guilty.

You have no proof that your desert is not poisoned, but you would take the chance of eating it anyway.

Once the odds reach a certain point, we don't consider the alternative as viable.

Even though your desert could be poisoned.

And so, the amount of "coincidence" and lucky accidents needed to create life are so ridiculously beyond reason, that you’re talking about a universe of people with duplicate fingerprints and continents of totally identical snowflakes.

You're talking about a monkey typing away at a keyboard and producing the Works of Shakespeare. Or more like, the entire stock of the library of congress.

It could happen.

We live our lives laughing at such claims. We would call the ambulance at someone who really believes those things.
Except for the atheist discussing G-d.

It's amazing how, on that level of reasonableness, a person would risk his life and send others to their death, but to avoid eating pork, for that, he needs "absolute proof".

The question is not "can we prove G-d?" The question is, given the proof that we do have, why in the world would anybody NOT believe in G-d???
And to that, so far, no atheist has come up with anything close to a sensible answer.

[MustafaMc]

That is the issue here - there are only two possibilities: (a) accident or (b) intelligence.

To say that it adapted or evolved just evades the question: adaptation and evolution are either accident or intelligence. Either a string of billions and trillions of perfectly aligned accidents or there is something in the organism that knows what direction it needs to evolve.

I agree with you. There is such a thing in my mind that a probability can be so infinitesimally small that for all practical purposes it is zero and no amount of time can ever exist for this probability to become a reality. Other people are more comfortable with this riduculously small probability than they are with the concept of a Creator. The question I have is, "Which person's faith is greater?"

[ajazz]

Creationism was dealt a blow today after the release of a fossil disvoverd more than 7 months ago destroys the creationists main arguement against ID.

One of the main arguements "against" evolution was:



Source:http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm

I really don't like the use of the term "Intermediate" species however, it looks like the creationists are going to have to remove a very large piece of thier accusations leveled at Evolution. As of now the creationist statement as noted above is (as we all suspected) utter BS.

This is a major find that fills in the gap

Source:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/sc...ewanted=1&_r=1

Source:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm

The paper is due to be released in the journal "Nature" shortly.

root delt a blow today



Is Fossil Discovery Darwin's "Missing Link"?-Tiktaalik Raises Unanticipated Problems for Evolution


"If Tiktaalik is a transitional intermediate, it means that evolution from fish to land-dwelling animals must have happened in less than 10 million years.

"When evolutionary biologists claim that the transition from sea to land is that fast-paced," argues Rana, "it raises very real questions about evolution as an explanation for life's history, even if this fossil is regarded as the 'holy grail' of paleontology.

"Evolution couldn't have happened that rapidly given the extensive biological changes needed for a creature to move from the water to land. Evolutionary biologists have made up their minds before they even examine the data," Rana continues. "They are so convinced that evolution is a fact they are unwilling to carefully weigh the evidence."

http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_...20060409.shtml





Another fishy missing link


"Just over 380 million years ago, it seems, our remote ancestors were large, flattish, predatory fishes, with crocodile-like heads and strong limb-like pectoral fins that enabled them to haul themselves out of the water," explained Per Erik Ahlberg of Uppsala and Jennifer Clark of the University of Cambridge, in a commentary accompanying their report in the journal Nature."



There is another fish called the "coelacanth." Ever hear of it? I've included a photo of one with this column – which, when you think about it, is really quite amazing. Because, just a few years ago, the same scientists who were calling the Tiktaalik fossil the missing link between sea life and land life were claiming the coelacanth fossils of the same era represented just that link.

Coelacanth

But, then, unfortunately for the evolutionists, coelacanths – these "350-million-year-old fossils" – turned out to be very much alive. They turned up regularly in fish markets. Today they live in aquariums – not terrariums – by the way.

The coelacanth has the same kind of lobe fins as the Tiktaalik. The fossil experts told us they enabled the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor. However, none have yet been observed walking. Instead, they use those lobe fins to swim better, not walk.

Like those of the coelacanth, the bones in the fins of the Tiktaalik are embedded in muscle – not part of the skeleton.

In other words, there is a whole lot of supposing going on about the Tiktaalik that is reminiscent of the kind of supposing that has gone on for as long as evolutionary theory has been around.

The Tiktaalik is no more a missing link between sea life and land life than a Tic Tac is a missing link between a Lifesaver and an Altoid.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49747



Still no irrefutable evidence.




.

[ranma1/2]

Stay with me ranma. Either way you look at an apple, whether it was made for people or people were made for it, it shows awareness of human needs, and the human body shows awareness of what the apple offers.

Could you clarify what you mean by this? It sounds as if you are saying the apple is aware. IM sure im misunderstanding you.

No matter which "adapted" to which, the question is: the ability to adapt, the fact that the body knew exactly how to digest those apples, how to grow in order to reach the apples, what limbs it needed to reach the apples, etc -- was that accident or intelligence?
The body did not know how to digest the apple, however through evolution the digestive system was formed. Limbs were not formed for reaching apples no more than my finger was made to clean my nose.
SO i would have to say that this is due to evolution.
That is the issue here - there are only two possibilities: (a) accident or (b) intelligence.
or (c) random mutations that are selected through natural means...
or (d) randome mutations that are selcted through natural and intelligent means.
or (d) many other possiblites.


To say that it adapted or evolved just evades the question: adaptation and evolution are either accident or intelligence.
It evades no question and you are missing the point of evo.

Either a string of billions and trillions of perfectly aligned accidents or there is something in the organism that knows what direction it needs to evolve.
Or have a billion and trillion accidents that are either selected through natural means in or out of the gene pool.

And don't forget - the organism needs the ability to be able to "evolve" to begin with. If we were all made of stone we couldn’t "evolve" lungs, etc.
sigh... you clearly need to read about evo and perhaps natural selection.
The majority of our organs and structures as humans were developed long before we were human in our ancestors.

So the proof still remains: the perfectly designed and aligned natural phenomenon could not have, by any reasonable odds, accidentally ended up this way.

ignoring your horrible example. How then would you explain a god coming into being? Just popping? Always existing?

And the only alternative to accident is intelligence.
nope.
It doesn't matter if the apple "adapted" for people or people "adapted" for the apple. Either way, accident is beyond believable odds.
your entire argument is flawed thats all i can.

What is referred to as "likelihood" of life evolving, still amounts to staggering odds. The numbers are too large to describe.
Did you know that no matter how small the chance of something happening it will likely happen. You might think that a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of someting happen wont but ask lottery winners.

The fact that elements got together and life came from them is itself ridiculous by accident.
I think i understand what you said, it sounds kind of odd, but it is much less ridiculous and more likely than your possiblities.

And the fact that life "knows" how to evolve is also impossible by accident.
True, life does not know how to evolve. Evolution is basicly caused by imperfect replication or mutations. Those mutations are not directed. A beaver will never evolve a chainsaw because he wants one. However if a mutation occurs that gives an advantage then it is more likely to be selected through natural means into the gene pool.

You may not realize the level of coincidence that is needed to do this. Did your stomach "evolve" before the lining that protects it from the acids? If so, it would have been destroyed after the first meal. If the lining evolved before the acids, then nature must also be endowed with prophecy, because it was burdened for millions of years with some useless lining, until the acid evolved.

sigh... i have already refuted this argument.
recap... these things evolved along time ago. Some evolved as very basic form of what they are now. Some initially evolved for completely different functions and eventually changed to what they are now.


The chicken egg needed to be the right thickness - not too thick and not too thin - to allow the development and hatching of the chicken, from the start. Or else even one generation of chicken would not have been able to survive.
the egg evolved way before the chicken.

And even if, theoretically, all this did evolve,
as it is said and shown to be supported by the evidence.

the fossil evidence would have to show the billions and billions of species that did not survive -
I would recommend learning about fossils and the fossilisation proccess. That will answer this arugment.
the "non fittest" that fell by the wayside. For every survivable species, you are talking about countless non-survivors. The odds are ridiculous. And the fossil record so far has ONLY COME UP WITH VIABLE LIFE FORMS.
The viable forms are more abundant and more likely to be fossilized, the non viable forms as you say would more likely be eaten or not even survive childhood.

We still have no answer to the question; How does anyone account for the staggering odds of life forming by accident?
We do, natural selection, although your question is flawed.

What the scientists are saying in essence is, "Yes, but it could happen."
Well, that is of course true, but then you would be unable to prove anything at all, because similarly, "It could always happen."
Science shows what is likely. It deals in possiblity and chance and what is likely. If you want proof go to math. Ill stick with the theories of gravity and evolution since they are the most likely reasons for what they try to answer.


If G-d Himself would come and reveal Himself to the entire world an say "I am Hashem", that, too, by atheist standard wouldn't prove anything because a happy string of coincidences could account for natural sounds and sights that happened to have coincidently united at the right time and place to cause such a phenomenon.

Personally I think Hashem should do that. It would make things a lot easier. Of course I imagine that many an atheist would say, prove it. "in the figuritive sense" Or perhaps they may say... Yeah and so what. Or perhaps they would comment on how bad a job he did in creation. Of course it an alien showed up and said it created us the christians and muslims would go like... Deciever... the scientologists might be scratching their heads too..

It could happen.
But science goes into what is likely and base the theories of science off of evidence.

Proof, in any other context other than atheists talking about G-d, is not expected to reach the level of absolute impossibility. There is no such thing as absolute impossibility. Anything "could" happen, as long as it is not an absurd concept that cannot exist (such as a triangle that is round).
You would send someone to the electric chair if you were a juror and the defendant’s fingerprints were found on the strangled victim's neck. A video of the murder, and perhaps 20 witnesses would make the verdict a no brainier.

But witnesses could lie, a video could be forged - one may even go so far as to claim that some technology exists out there that we are as yet unaware of that synthesized such a realistic video.
As for lying, science uses a process called peer review to help weed out those dirty fibbers. It also helps weed out mistakes and bad data.

And please note, that there is no proof anywhere that says two people cannot have the same fingerprints. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in nature at all that precludes duplicate fingerprints.
However we can theorize that no one had the same fingerprint and we can back it up with evidence such as how fingerprints are formed and what effects their formation. Also all we need to disprove it is just something like 2 people having the same fingerprints. Then it is falsified.
How in the world would my fingers know, when I am born, the patterns of fingerprints that have already been "placed" on the fingers of every other human being? How do my fingers know which fingerprints are "used" already so as to avoid duplicating them?
Know? sigh... i suggest reading about fingerprints and their formation.


The only reason that we assume - yes, assume! - that two sets of fingerprints cannot be alike, or that two snowflakes cannot be alike
Snowflakes actually can be alike for that you need to also look at the formation of snowflakes.

, is because there are so many billions of possible fingerprint patterns, and snowflake patterns, that the odds of two like patterns existing are so staggering that we don’t even consider it a possibility.
Even though it could happen.

So if you are a juror and the defense attorney claims that nobody "proved" that the fingerprints on the victim's neck were really the defendants - because it could happen that by coincidence two identical sets exist, and that you can't "prove" that the 20 witnesses told the truth (they could have all lied and coincidently made up the same exact details in the story), and that you cant "prove" that the video cannot be faked, he would be laughed out of the courtroom.

Even though it all "could happen".

And you would send the defendant to his death, because you saw proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that this man is guilty.

You have no proof that your desert is not poisoned, but you would take the chance of eating it anyway.
However based on evidence I can pretty much assume that its not. "of course i did get food poisoning once."
Once the odds reach a certain point, we don't consider the alternative as viable.
We are looking at evidence in science too.. Thats probably the biggest factor.
Even though your desert could be poisoned.

.....
We live our lives laughing at such claims. We would call the ambulance at someone who really believes those things.
Except for the atheist discussing G-d.
For the most part the majority of scientists that see the theory of evo being the most likely explaination for why there is a variety of species are theists.

It's amazing how, on that level of reasonableness, a person would risk his life and send others to their death, but to avoid eating pork, for that, he needs "absolute proof".
Huh? Your loosing me even morethan have before.

The question is not "can we prove G-d?" The question is, given the proof that we do have, why in the world would anybody NOT believe in G-d???
Because there is no evidnce for a god or gods, the def of a god varies as well, the evidence that there are supposedly billions of different gods and only one is supposedly the right one. There is no evidence for a god so why believe in one. Heck lets say there is a god, what evidence is there that its not Zeus, GFSM, the pink invisibly unicorn, me, Earl... etc...
And to that, so far, no atheist has come up with anything close to a sensible answer.

Read above and please

Read up on evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

read up on science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

read up on the scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

Those links should help aid you in getting a better understanding of science of evolution.

[ranma1/2]

root delt a blow today

Is Fossil Discovery Darwin's "Missing Link"?-Tiktaalik Raises Unanticipated Problems for Evolution

"If Tiktaalik is a transitional intermediate, it means that evolution from fish to land-dwelling animals must have happened in less than 10 million years.

"When evolutionary biologists claim that the transition from sea to land is that fast-paced," argues Rana, "it raises very real questions about evolution as an explanation for life's history, even if this fossil is regarded as the 'holy grail' of paleontology.

"Evolution couldn't have happened that rapidly given the extensive biological changes needed for a creature to move from the water to land. Evolutionary biologists have made up their minds before they even examine the data," Rana continues. "They are so convinced that evolution is a fact they are unwilling to carefully weigh the evidence."

http://www.reasons.org/resources/in_...20060409.shtml

Another fishy missing link

"Just over 380 million years ago, it seems, our remote ancestors were large, flattish, predatory fishes, with crocodile-like heads and strong limb-like pectoral fins that enabled them to haul themselves out of the water," explained Per Erik Ahlberg of Uppsala and Jennifer Clark of the University of Cambridge, in a commentary accompanying their report in the journal Nature."

There is another fish called the "coelacanth." Ever hear of it? I've included a photo of one with this column – which, when you think about it, is really quite amazing. Because, just a few years ago, the same scientists who were calling the Tiktaalik fossil the missing link between sea life and land life were claiming the coelacanth fossils of the same era represented just that link.

Coelacanth

But, then, unfortunately for the evolutionists, coelacanths – these "350-million-year-old fossils" – turned out to be very much alive. They turned up regularly in fish markets. Today they live in aquariums – not terrariums – by the way.

The coelacanth has the same kind of lobe fins as the Tiktaalik. The fossil experts told us they enabled the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor. However, none have yet been observed walking. Instead, they use those lobe fins to swim better, not walk.

Like those of the coelacanth, the bones in the fins of the Tiktaalik are embedded in muscle – not part of the skeleton.

In other words, there is a whole lot of supposing going on about the Tiktaalik that is reminiscent of the kind of supposing that has gone on for as long as evolutionary theory has been around.

The Tiktaalik is no more a missing link between sea life and land life than a Tic Tac is a missing link between a Lifesaver and an Altoid.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=49747

Still no irrefutable evidence..

You do realize that species do not have to die out for other species to evolve from them. Its the if your parents made you then why do we still have your parents argument.
Now in all likely hood those fish are not the exact same fish from the past but the closest known relative.

So basicly evolution has no problem with a ancient missing link still being alive. It found its nitch. Other fish that evolved from it found their nitch and those species that evolved from those many branches found their nitches. SOme die out as others take over their nitch , some dont...

[ajazz]

You do realize that species do not have to die out for other species to evolve from them. Its the if your parents made you then why do we still have your parents argument

argument from prestige

There is no evidence that species evolve from other species.

my parents did not produce a monkey neither i was born with fins.
i don't know about your parents

no refutable evidence yet....:D



.

[ajazz]

You do realize that species do not have to die out for other species to evolve from them. Its the if your parents made you then why do we still have your parents argument

argument from prestige

There is no evidence that species evolve from other species.

my parents did not produce a monkey neither i was born with fins.
i don't know about your parents

no irrefutable evidence yet....:D



.

[ranma1/2]

argument from prestige

There is no evidence that species evolve from other species.

my parents did not produce a monkey neither i was born with fins.
i don't know about your parents

no irrefutable evidence yet....:D

.

Dejavu, im sure ive seen this post before.

Ok there is evidence that species have evolved from other species.
Genetic evidence, fossil evidence to name 2.
Now dont confuse evidence with proof. Proof is for math.

[جوري]

speaking of deja vu --- no beer or saki this time?

[ajazz]

Dejavu, im sure ive seen this post before.

Ok there is evidence that species have evolved from other species.
Genetic evidence, fossil evidence to name 2.

where is the evidence??????????????????

Now dont confuse evidence with proof. Proof is for math.

yeah, and banana is for monkeys only.


.

[ajazz]

If you were to ask me do you believe in evolution and that we share a common accentor with apes?
No certainly not, especially the Darwin’s theory, because it has not been conclusively proven beyond doubt and there is no irrefutable evidence but there is evidence contrary to it.
You see majority of believers of Darwin are atheists and the problem with atheists is that by denying the existence of god vehemently and solely depending on science to provide the answers, they have shrunk the boundaries of their reasoning and I don’t blame them for it, since the world is full of false gods and beliefs and any rational and logical thinking mind would reject them but by doing so they have also rejected the one and only true god (Allah) (Read my post on how logically and rationally only Allah is the creator of the universe)
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...sts-woods.html

Atheists are always in revision mode because as new evidence uncovers they have to change their position.
Since they deny god even if rationally and logically argued they reject it without giving a second thought (at least most of them as far as I know) and they cannot forward any alternative explanation or theory as to our origin hence they hang on to the coffin of Darwin, they have no alternative but to present the Darwin’s theory as fact which is miles away from the truth.

Why we should oppose Darwin?

Because it is not fully established and Darwin proposed ideas which are raciest and destructive to the human society

Darwin and his cousin Francis Galton influenced Hitler and as we know he was responsible for the killings of millions of innocent Jews

Title: Research papper on: The Nazi race policies were influenced by Darwin's theory and publications.

The Nazi race policies were influenced by Darwin's theory and publications. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler's government relied heavily upon Darwinism. As a result, a central policy of Hitler's administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect "the soupier race". This required at the vary least preventing "the inferior race" mixing with those judged soupier, in order to reduce contamination of the latter's gene pool. The "the soupier race" belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin's original "survival of the fittest"

http://www.cheathouse.com/essay/essa..._essay_id=7207

“Another world leader Benito Mussolini who brought fascism to Italy, interestingly believed that Darwin's theories supported his belief that violence was essential for social transformation. A theory also supported by none other than Karl Marx. In December 1860 Marx is reported by Conway Zirkle in: Evolution, Marxian Biology, and the Social Scene, to have written to Engles that, "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis of struggle in history...not only is a death blow dealt here for the first time to 'Teleology' (ie Creationism) in the natural sciences, but their rational meaning is emphatically explained."



“The combination of social Darwinism and communism is no where more clearly seen than in the policy of the Chinese Communist Party which developed the 95:5 formula of class assignment. The formula basically argued that 95 per cent of the population would be classified as various classes that could be won over by the CCP, but five per cent should be designated as class enemies. As stated in the Nine Commentaries, "People within the 95 per cent were safe, but those within the 5 per cent were struggled against."

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-1-9/36682.html


As you can see Darwin’s ideas resulted in untold miseries for millions of peoples
One may argue that there were other people also who were responsible for such atrocities
True but the above fact remains.


Also Darwin’s theory encourages atheism, which causes social and moral problems in the society.
(I will not go in detail here, it will make the post to long and off tangent)

There are gaps, holes, and craters in Darwin’s theory


By stating that our forefathers were apes they have degraded the status of human beings
To that of an animals. How many times you have heard don’t behave like a dog or pig
Or better still don’t behave like an animal!!!

Out of millions of creatures on earth humans singularly stand out from the rest of the creatures.
We humans have logical and rational thinking we are the most versatile and ingenious,
We have the most complex social and emotional behavior; we have the power of reasoning.

Many scientists tried to teach apes some sort of communication skill so that they can interact with humans at human level but they have failed miserably.
Over a long period of time some changes may take place in some species
The apes today may be somewhat different from the apes millions of year ago
But basically the ape still remains an ape that’s why you will not find an ape doing a Picasso!!
If evolution is true than why out of millions of creatures and after millions of years Only Human beings are such highly developed, be it rational thinking, power of reasoning, dexterity, emotions, social behavior.
There is not a single species, which come close to such human complexity.
Think about it without any bias

Evolution does not take place, at least not the way Darwin states
Even after millions of years we human still have 5 basic senses, we have not developed super brains, what we humans have done is used our power of reasoning and logical thinking and rational mind to expand our knowledge base to extraordinary level
As a result of which we have become highly advanced in so many fields today.

The proponents of Darwin’s theory have themselves become the master of Darwin today
They refuse to accept the futility of Darwin’s theory in explaining the origin of man
Simply because they have no other alternative except to confirm the existence of god.
Therefore they hang on to any flimsy evidence provided to them.
Example: theory of gravity by shrimp :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

You see Darwin himself was in doubt about his theory and was open to the idea that his theory will collapse.


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 (Darwin, 1859, p. 219).


“Living fossil is the nickname given to organisms whose traces appear in the fossil layers from early geological periods, of which living specimens are still found today. These living things exhibit no differences from their counterparts from millions of years ago, and represent living examples of those long-dead fossil forms.”


“The Cœlacanth, which according to the fossil record, dates back some 410 million years to the Devonian period, was regarded by evolutionists as a powerful intermediate form between fish and reptile. It had been mysteriously erased from the fossil record 70 million years ago, during the Cretaceous period, and was believed to have become extinct at that time.19 Based on these fossils, evolutionist biologists suggested that this creature had a non-functioning, "primitive" as evolutionists put it, lung. Speculation regarding the Cœlacanth became so widespread that the fish was cited in many scientific publications as the most significant evidence for evolution. Paintings and drawings of it leaving the water for the land quickly began appearing in books and magazines. Of course, all these assumptions, images and claims, were based on the idea that the creature was extinct.”


“The catching of a live specimen of Cœlacanth did away with one of the greatest fake foundations of the theory of evolution.”



The Horseshoe Crab

“The first fossil records of the horseshoe crab go back 425 million years, yet this living fossil still lives along present-day shores. Its tail, which allows it to walk with ease across the sand and which is used for steering, its two eyes with their exceedingly complex structures, and all its other unique features have remained unchanged over the last 425 million years.”


The Cockroach

“The cockroach, the oldest winged insect in the world, first appears in fossils some 350 million years old, from the Carboniferous period.24 This insect—with its various feelers and hairs that are extremely sensitive to the slightest movement, even to air currents, its perfect wings, and its resistant structure capable of withstanding even radiation—is identical now to how it was 350 million years ago”

http://www.living-fossils.com/3_1.php


Tens of Thousands of Fossils in Amber Refute Evolution

http://www.living-fossils.com/living_fossils_3_1.php


Darwin himself would have collapsed let alone his theory if he were presented such evidence!!!!!


Thank you for reading




.

[AB517]

" .... Atheists are always in revision mode because as new evidence uncovers they have to change their position.
Since they deny god even if rationally and logically argued they reject it without giving a second thought (at least most of them as far as I know) and they cannot forward any alternative explanation or theory as to our origin hence they hang on to the coffin of Darwin, they have no alternative but to present the Darwin’s theory as fact which is miles away from the truth.

Why we should oppose Darwin?

Because it is not fully established and Darwin proposed ideas which are raciest and destructive to the human society

Darwin and his cousin Francis Galton influenced Hitler and as we know he was responsible for the killings of millions of innocent Jews

Title: Research papper on: The Nazi race policies were influenced by Darwin's theory and publications.

The Nazi race policies were influenced by Darwin's theory and publications. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler's government relied heavily upon Darwinism. As a result, a central policy of Hitler's administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect "the soupier race". This required at the vary least preventing "the inferior race" mixing with those judged soupier, in order to reduce contamination of the latter's gene pool. The "the soupier race" belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin's original "survival of the fittest ...."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO scientist thinks darwin is a fact.

People that change their minds in the present of truth. Is that a bad thing?

Hilter:

Satan takes many forms and uses many tools.
There is plenty of history to proove religous people did exactly the same thing.

Prsent theory:
Puncuated equilibrium: slow progress (adaptations) and then every so often quick changes (new species).

This is about the only thing rittien in stone.
Then the next question Is "Do you believe this is Gods work.

I BELIEVE God created this universe through the physicals laws that scientist study. Remeber, the only important question is "Do you believe?
(when it comes to creation that is)

These laws of evolutist are no more or no less as fimbsy as any religous book.

Maybe, just maybe ... God created man through evolution. (a magician waves his wond first, then the magic comes"

I believe God set the big bang off, with the physical He set in place to reach his goal. We can only study his laws. Notice I use no text to prove; because as I have seeen in these rooms of diffrent religions it is easy to poke holes in evolution and creationism. How bout this Idea, Maybe it is some where in between.

May we all find the God of our understanding.

AB

[Pygoscelis]

You see majority of believers of Darwin are atheists

I'd like to see you substantiate this because I think it is false. The majority of people who believe in evolution are not atheists. This is simple to observe. The number of people who believe in evolution is very high, perhaps beven a majority. The number of people who are atheists is a very small minority. Oh and see the post directly above this one. This fellow doesn't appear to be an atheist.

Atheists are always in revision mode because as new evidence uncovers they have to change their position.

It is reasonable and logical to change ones position as new evidence is uncovered. To refuse to do so is stubbornly illogical.

Since they deny god even if rationally and logically argued they reject it without giving a second thought (at least most of them as far as I know)

False. That is a false argument you yourself have created and attributed to them. Maybe you should actually listen to a few and you may realize that they do indeed think about it.

and they cannot forward any alternative explanation or theory as to our origin hence they hang on to the coffin of Darwin, they have no alternative but to present the Darwin’s theory as fact which is miles away from the truth.

This is wrong on two levels. First, atheists are not universal in their thoughts, and some do indeed have alternative theories to how we came to be (many of which conflict with each other). Second, you do not need to know how the world came to be to reject unsubstantiated and fantastic claims to same. They do not "hang on the coffin of darwin". Many don't believe in evolution at all.

Because it is not fully established and Darwin proposed ideas which are raciest and destructive to the human society

Did he?

Darwin and his cousin Francis Galton influenced Hitler and as we know he was responsible for the killings of millions of innocent Jews

Oh you mean Galton twisted his idea and then Hitler twisted it further? Why didn't you say so.

Garlton didn't influence Hitler directly. Moreover, That one group of humans creates more of itself and that that group is hated and exterminated is nothing new. The Romans did that.

Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains.

Which has little to do with evolutionary theory. People have been selectively breeding cattle for centuries prior to Darwin.

Also Darwin’s theory encourages atheism, which causes social and moral problems in the society.
(I will not go in detail here, it will make the post to long and off tangent)

You didn't really think you could post that line without looking ridiculous, did you?

There are gaps, holes, and craters in Darwin’s theory

So? Thats why we still do research. To fill in those holes and adapt the theory. You see, unlike rigid religion, science is supposed to be flexible and adaptive.

By stating that our forefathers were apes they have degraded the status of human beings

What do you have against apes?

Many scientists tried to teach apes some sort of communication skill so that they can interact with humans at human level but they have failed miserably.

Perhaps you should reread your sources. There are numerous chimpanzees who have learned sign language and who have passed it on to others as well.

If evolution is true than why out of millions of creatures and after millions of years Only Human beings are such highly developed, be it rational thinking, power of reasoning, dexterity, emotions, social behavior.

Because it doesn' happen frequently? And takes a long time to happen? And because once it does happen the species created comes to dominate the planet and stops it from happening again with another species there?

And just a heads up, there was another such species on earth. I'll let you look that up for yourself to find out who it was.

Even after millions of years we human still have 5 basic senses

So? How does that invaluate the slow process of evolution?

And why do you assume that millions of years ago we had the same 5 basic senses anyway? It may be true, but then again it my not. You've looked this up? Rather silly to assume it.

You see Darwin himself was in doubt about his theory and was open to the idea that his theory will collapse.

That just shows he may have been a competent scientist.

[lavikor201]

Read above and please

Read up on evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

read up on science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

read up on the scientific theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

Those links should help aid you in getting a better understanding of science of evolution.

Your responses were nothing but absolutly ridiculous. You said that not onyl is it "accident or intellegence" but can also be "random mutations" yet do you not understand that a random mutation is an "accident". They are "copying errors" in the genetic material during cell division.

Your arguments are non-sense. The lottery winners are infinitly more likely to win then the evolution of a piece of algey to a human.

If your computer began flying in the air and flashed on the screen "Hashem id oing this" and then fell and stopped you would find some mutation or way scientifcally to prove it was not Hashem. Now are you right? of coruse not.

[جوري]

Your responses were nothing but absolutly ridiculous. You said that not onyl is it "accident or intellegence" but can also be "random mutations" yet do you not understand that a random mutation is an "accident". They are "copying errors" in the genetic material during cell division.

Your arguments are non-sense. The lottery winners are infinitly more likely to win then the evolution of a piece of algey to a human.

If your computer began flying in the air and flashed on the screen "Hashem id oing this" and then fell and stopped you would find some mutation or way scientifcally to prove it was not Hashem. Now are you right? of coruse not.

Don't bother with this one.. we have listed her/him every mutation under the sun (the impossibility) of any known/ documented mutation to cause a state of anything other than death/disease and or adaptation.. including ones to disprove her/his "natural- selection" thesis, yet s/he-- is only keen on passing websites.. without being able to distil it down to answer one simple question... trust me-- it is a waste of time...
if anyone wanted to google a topic it would be a two second search to finding any number of legitimate articles.. it is like your prof. engaging you in an assignment and you stating "yo teach. the answer is on the web" :rollseyes

peace!

[Mr. Baldy]

No its not tautaology it is shown to be the most accurate scientific theory as to why there is variety in the spieces. What i pointed out was your misconception that if something is a theory it is somehow not valid in science as you seem to suggest.

Now look up and come back with what a scientific theory is. Post a link to a reasonable source that you have read if you want.

well if ur basing ur beliefs on science, ill attack science. quite simply science is completley fickle, theories are being proven wrong all the time, for example quantam physics and the theory of relativity, the big bang theory replaced a different theory (i forget what the name is). so really its only a matter of time until a 'more accurate theory' comes out. what will u do then? what will happen to the beliefs u hold so staunchly

rather than basing ur beliefs on science, i suggest u base them on ration.

[lavikor201]

Do you know that 2/3 of all Scientists believed that the Universe was eternal and there was no such thing as a beggining before the new big bang fad came in?

[wilberhum]

Do you know that 2/3 of all Scientists believed that the Universe was eternal and there was no such thing as a beggining before the new big bang fad came in?

But doesn't the Quran prove that the Big Bang happened?
I thought that Muslims knew about that 1400 years ago.
What am I missing? :skeleton:

[lavikor201]

LOL my favorite is the "speed of light one"... LOL! :p Laughable.

[Mr. Baldy]

really? coz my favourite is golden cow gods. have u even read the quran me thinks not.

so whats ur point jones? and besides thats just silly... the universe is eternal when the components of that universe are limited? which silly goose came up with that..

[AB517]

But doesn't the Quran prove that the Big Bang happened?
I thought that Muslims knew about that 1400 years ago.
What am I missing? :skeleton:

very true, many creation stories storyies have been around before we (scientist) found them. I think this way cool. If man can dream it ... God has probably done it already.

AB

[ranma1/2]

If you were to ask me do you believe in evolution and that we share a common accentor with apes?
No certainly not, especially the Darwin’s theory, because it has not been conclusively proven beyond doubt and there is no irrefutable evidence but there is evidence contrary to it.

We have already discussed the problem of your with proof.


You see majority of believers of Darwin
Just for clarification everyone believes in Darwin, we have evidence that he was born and that he lived and that he died. We even have photos of um.. wait your talking about evolution.. Doh...
Well I should hope you know that the evolutionary theory has changed since darwins time. So has the field of astronomy since Galileos time.

are atheists
Nope as I and others have pointed out before this is not true.

and the problem with atheists is that by denying the existence of god
A slight sematic error here but thats semantics.

vehemently and solely depending on science to provide the answers, they have shrunk the boundaries of their reasoning and I don’t blame them for it, since the world is full of false gods and beliefs and any rational and logical thinking mind would reject them but by doing so they have also rejected the one and only true god (Allah) (Read my post on how logically and rationally only Allah is the creator of the universe)
Well at least you realize that atheists in general use logic


Atheists are always in revision mode because as new evidence uncovers they have to change their position.
And correcting or adjusting theories and knowledge as you learn more is bad?

Since they deny god even if rationally and logically argued they reject it without giving a second thought (at least most of them as far as I know)
I imagine for most atheists they have not had it logically argued nor has any evidence been presented.


and they cannot forward any alternative explanation or theory as to our origin
Of course other theories have been presented. Heck the theory of evo has been adjusted itself from its original form as new info was aquired.


hence they hang on to the coffin of Darwin, they have no alternative but to present the Darwin’s theory as fact which is miles away from the truth.
Evolution has been observed and in that it is fact, how it occurs is the theory. Same with gravity, it has been observed but how it occurs is the theory.


Why we should oppose Darwin? Becuase he was an old bitter man? Oh wait your talking about evo again...

Because it is not fully established and Darwin proposed ideas which are raciest and destructive to the human society.And nuclear fussion is bad because it allows atomic bombs. science doesnt care about racism or good or bad it deals with theories. Right now your trying to discredit evo because you think bad things come from it. Bad argument. it doesnt matter if racists use evo incorrectly to justify their views, evo is not a racists theory and those that use it for that are simply incorrect.


Darwin and his cousin Francis Galton influenced Hitler and as we know he was responsible for the killings of millions of innocent Jews

Title: Research papper on: The Nazi race policies were influenced by Darwin's theory and publications.
.......http://www.cheathouse.com/essay/essa..._essay_id=7207
Did you know that Hitler was also a christian and human and he could read ect..... etc.... etc...

... Benito Mussolini ..... Karl Marx. .......


“The combination of social Darwinism...http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-1-9/36682.html.
Social darwinsim is completely different from actual evolution or what you call darwinism.
....



As you can see Darwin’s ideas resulted in untold miseries for millions of peoples
So did the invention of fire and the wheel and the theory of gravity. It doesnt make them wrong.

One may argue that there were other people also who were responsible for such atrocities.
True but the above fact remains.
That evolution has been observed and that the theory tries to explain how it works.

Also Darwin’s theory encourages atheism, which causes social and moral problems in the society.(I will not go in detail here, it will make the post to long and off tangent)
No it doesnt, the belief that darwin existed doesnt encoura..... doh you mean evo dont you. Well the belief in evolution does not encourage atheism since the majority of evolutionary scientists are theists.
And you can make another thread on the social and moral problems of atheism if you want.


There are gaps, holes, and craters in Darwin’s theory
Wow who would have thought. ditto what Pygoscelis said.

By stating that our forefathers were apes they have degraded the status of human beings To that of an animals.
and what problems do you have with apes and animals? Oh by the way biologically we are apes and animals.

...

Out of millions of creatures on earth humans singularly stand out from the rest of the creatures.
Wow, i didnt know that we could hold our breath longer than whales, or kill a tiger bare handed, or breath under water, or live under immense pressure, or live under very low pressure, or.... etc.. etc...

We humans have logical and rational thinking we are the most versatile and ingenious,
We have the most complex social and emotional behavior; we have the power of reasoning.
Assuming that you are right, so what? You have only chosen what we have been best suited for, other animals are likewise also better suited for their enviroment. Nothing special about us, we are just adapted to our enviroment.

Many scientists tried to teach apes some sort of communication skill so that they can interact with humans at human level but they have failed miserably.
Ditto what Pygoscelis said. Other apes have been taught sign language.
....
If evolution is true than why out of millions of creatures and after millions of years Only Human beings are such highly developed,
We are not the only "highly developed", pretty much every creature is highly developed for their nitch.

.....

Evolution does not take place, at least not the way Darwin states
true because evolution of today is not the same as the evolution of darwins day and age.

Even after millions of years we human still have 5 basic senses, we have not developed super brains, what we humans have done is used our power of reasoning and logical thinking and rational mind to expand our knowledge base to extraordinary level
As a result of which we have become highly advanced in so many fields today.
Ditto what Pygoscelis said.

The proponents of Darwin’s theory have themselves become the master of Darwin today And the universe... .... He-Man....

They refuse to accept the futility of Darwin’s theory in explaining the origin of man
yes they dont think its futile to explain and thus they keep on learning..

Simply because they have no other alternative except to confirm the existence of god. Evo does not equal atheism.

Therefore they hang on to any flimsy evidence provided to them.
nope. as a matter of fact an of those hoaxs you hear about were likely disproven by evolutionary scientists.

...

You see Darwin himself was in doubt about his theory and was open to the idea that his theory will collapse.

Wow he gave ways to falsify evo.. no way that would happen in science... Of course you still dont understand that evo of today is not the same as it was in darwins time, it has been adjusted as new info has come in.


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 (Darwin, 1859, p. 219).
And this would be a falsification criteria. And guess what...

“Living fossil is the nickname given to organisms whose traces appear in the fossil layers from early geological periods, of which living specimens are still found today. These living things exhibit no differences from their counterparts from millions of years ago, and represent living examples of those long-dead fossil forms.”
and evo allows for their to be living fossils.

“The Cœlacanth, ......”See above.

“The catching of a live specimen of Cœlacanth did away with one of the greatest fake foundations of the theory of evolution.”
false, see above.

The Horseshoe Crab ......”
see above.

The Cockroach....”

see above...


Darwin himself would have collapsed let alone his theory if he were presented such evidence!!!!!

Nope, as stated, the theory of evo allows for living fossils, a species does not need to die out inorder for it to evolve. It will often split into more forms as new nitches are presented. If one finds its current nitch perfect then you wont likely see a change, If a variation of it finds a nother nitch its better suited for then it will take over that nitch.

[ranma1/2]

Your responses were nothing but absolutly ridiculous. You said that not onyl is it "accident or intellegence" but can also be "random mutations" yet do you not understand that a random mutation is an "accident". They are "copying errors" in the genetic material during cell division.

Your arguments are non-sense. The lottery winners are infinitly more likely to win then the evolution of a piece of algey to a human.

If your computer began flying in the air and flashed on the screen "Hashem id oing this" and then fell and stopped you would find some mutation or way scientifcally to prove it was not Hashem. Now are you right? of coruse not.

There is a difference between just random and random and selection.
But to get back to what i was saying, if i recall correctly the posts i was responding to was say roughly
a)random, b) god are the only choices, i showed that he was wrong that there were other choices including.
Random mutation with selection as being one of them.

[ranma1/2]

Don't bother with this one.. we have listed her/him every mutation under the sun (the impossibility) of any known/ documented mutation to cause a state of anything other than death/disease and or adaptation.. including ones to disprove her/his "natural- selection" thesis, yet s/he-- is only keen on passing websites.. without being able to distil it down to answer one simple question... trust me-- it is a waste of time...
if anyone wanted to google a topic it would be a two second search to finding any number of legitimate articles.. it is like your prof. engaging you in an assignment and you stating "yo teach. the answer is on the web" :rollseyes

peace!

You listed mutations and i explained that mutations are random, you confused what causes a mutation with the actual mutation. I admit that mutations are caused, either by damage to dna or imperfect replication to name 2. You also seem to completely ignore the selection part of evo.

[ranma1/2]

well if ur basing ur beliefs on science, ill attack science. quite simply science is completley fickle, theories are being proven wrong all the time, for example quantam physics and the theory of relativity, the big bang theory replaced a different theory (i forget what the name is). so really its only a matter of time until a 'more accurate theory' comes out. what will u do then? what will happen to the beliefs u hold so staunchly

rather than basing ur beliefs on science, i suggest u base them on ration.

Wow. i mean wow you dont belive in science?
I can understand wanting to believe something because it doesnt change. It creates a kind of secure feeling but it doesnt mean that it is not wrong.

Science tries to discover the hows and whys and tries to back those up with evidence. If it weren for science you would not have that nice computer you are typing on. Nor modern medicine, nor other technological marvels. So wether you openly accept science or not it influences your life.

[جوري]

You listed mutations and i explained that mutations are random, you confused what causes a mutation with the actual mutation. I admit that mutations are caused, either by damage to dna or imperfect replication to name 2. You also seem to completely ignore the selection part of evo.

I made you quite a long list of questions which you have decided to evade!.. Your buddy came to your rescue thus answering me one question with another..You maintained you didn't like the style of presentation, :rollseyes I can safely assume, it is because you didn't understand what was presented you... then the thread was closed. Why are you entertaining us again and all of a sudden? I am not going to go through the trouble of retyping my work... I admit it isn't as fast as linking us to a website... but at least some thought went into it.

Peace

[ranma1/2]

I made you quite a long list of questions which you have decided to evade!.. Your buddy came to your rescue thus answering me one question with another..You maintained you didn't like the style of presentation, :rollseyes I can safely assume, it is because you didn't understand what was presented you... then the thread was closed. Why are you entertaining us again and all of a sudden? I am not going to go through the trouble of retyping my work... I admit it isn't as fast as linking us to a website... but at least some thought went into it.

Peace

I answered many of them and you kept avoiding my answers.
As for your presentation, i dont care for and tend to ignore rude and uncivil remarks. Your presentation tended to avoid facts and responces and instead attacked the poster and the facts or evidence presented.
You provided mutations, i showed how your thinking was flawed.
You also constantly tried to hijack the thread from evo related mutatations "germline or those that can be passed on" to other forms of mutations. You never showed how those mutations were not random.
Now please be civil, try to attack the evidence presented for how they are wrong rather than avoiding them.

[جوري]

You answered none! go revisit it and have a look if your memory is failing you, and spare me the usual rhetoric! I am sick of this pedantic tit for tat...

[ranma1/2]

You answered none! go revisit it and have a look if your memory is failing you, and spare me the usual rhetoric! I am sick of this pedantic tit for tat...

actually i did, you may have ignored the answers. And I admit aftger page 4 of that thread i just started ingnoring your posts due to your uncivilized manner " you have improved though which i appreciate" Regaurdless i have asked the mods about why the thread was closed so hopefully i can create a seperate thread for us to continue our debates there and prevent this one frombeing derailed with yes you did and no you didnts...

[جوري]

You are so full of you know what... Here is the post again show me your keen critical analysis -- your answers point by point!
It is a child that blathers and it is a man that speaks his mind!

http://www.islamicboard.com/711552-post53.html

[lavikor201]

really? coz my favourite is golden cow gods. have u even read the quran me thinks not.

If you understood the first thing about the story, maybe I would indulge you.

You listed mutations and i explained that mutations are random, you confused what causes a mutation with the actual mutation. I admit that mutations are caused, either by damage to dna or imperfect replication to name 2. You also seem to completely ignore the selection part of evo.

It's simple math: the world is either accident or intelligence. If you want to be an atheist, your choice is accident.

If accident. it was either at once or in stages. But that such a highly developed world can accidentally all come at once, like "boom!" there’s people, males, females. Food, water, air, sunlight etc" all suddenly and at the same time is currently inexplicable.

That leaves graduality, which means evolution.

The exact mechanism whereby the graduality supposedly took place - survival of the fittest, sudden mutation, etc - is where the theories come in. But if you’re going to be an atheist, you’re going to have to find some way to validate evolution, because until they find something else, evolution is the only way to explain a G-dless world. That’s why its worth spending our time showing what nonsense evolution is, because today, that’s all the atheists have to hang their hats on. Once that’s not an option, there is nothing left for them.

And if they come up with some other silly idea, that too, will be worth spending our time to expose. But right now, this is all they have. And it is nothing.

[Allah-creation]

science proves the existence of Allah(SW) each passing DAY!!!

[ranma1/2]

You are so full of you know what... Here is the post again show me your keen critical analysis -- your answers point by point!
It is a child that blathers and it is a man that speaks his mind!

http://www.islamicboard.com/711552-post53.html

well so much for civility, sigh. if you want to discuss it create a seperate thread, but for point. At that point of the thread i jsut decided discussion with you was pointless since you ignore my posts and just throw insults.

[جوري]

lol... thank you.. that is exactly what I expected you'd say!

when the going gets tough....

peace!

[ranma1/2]

OK here is a reply to that posts you linked to.

After deleting your insults and such I’ve narrowed your posts a little bit.

Can you show me a species that has evolved over time without using fossil records:
I answered that one earlier in the thread, you discounted it. And fossil evidence is also very relevant so I assume you don’t want this presented since you know that. Or you are being dishonest in not wanting it presented since it hurts your case.

Can you tell me why these are evolutionary findings as opposed to say related species or completely different species?
Well related they most likely are, as for other evidence apart from fossils which show a clear relation, we have genetics that show a clear relation between species. Humans have clear genetic similarities to other apes.


Can you tell me why the fossils found are of our ancestors rather than species that have gone extinct—
Wow trying to do a trick question? Speaking in a general term, the fossils show a progression from one form to another. As for extinction, it doesn’t really matter if they are still alive today or not , what matters is that their children at some point split from their form to another so they can both be our ancestors and extinct or alive. “although in all likely hood they will have had their nitch filled by something similar.”

considering there is a number of things they don't share with us-
……

I left this in even though it wasn’t a question. It is expected that they will have differences since they aren’t us. However genetically we have a genetic ancestor.

is evolution reproducible?
Yes

reproducible means we can duplicate it, can do it again to prove it and stick it in the eye of those G-D believing twits.
Fact is that the majority of those evolutionists are as you put it are G-D believing twits.
Apart from your constant hostility, yes it can be reproduced in that it can be observed and observed again. Gravity for example can be observed by dropping a pen. Evo can be observed by watching species change and split over time.

Show me how any mutation known to us, can cause evolution to a new specie rather than the usual--a state of disease or death or adaptation to one of the previously mentioned types of (-plasias)?
Not any mutations, we are talking about evolution so we are referring to germ line mutations.
And here is a source for you from Berkley, if that isn’t good enough for you then I don’t know what would be. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_05
.The basic process is this. A Mutation occurs, it is random, “mind you it likely was caused by something. Examples being damage from a source, imperfect replication etc..” and in all likely hood it will be selected out if the mutation prevents reproduction , if it does not help or hinder then it’s a neutral mutation and no likely change to chance of survival, if its positive in that aids the creature in survival then it is much more likely to be passed on in the gene pool.


So all that post was shortened to that little bit.

[جوري]

[QUOTE=ranma1/2;717639]OK here is a reply to that posts you linked to.

After deleting your insults and such I’ve narrowed your posts a little bit..

convenient

Can you show me a species that has evolved over time without using fossil records:
I answered that one earlier in the thread, you discounted it. And fossil evidence is also very relevant so I assume you don’t want this presented since you know that. Or you are being dishonest in not wanting it presented since it hurts your case..

So what is your answer? such an amazing evolved specie currently exists and we have all missed the whole process? How does a fossil hurt my case? I can open a grave run some tests on a guy and say he shares similar genetics with you thus he must be your uncle? That is very silly!

Can you tell me why these are evolutionary findings as opposed to say related species or completely different species?
Well related they most likely are, as for other evidence apart from fossils which show a clear relation, we have genetics that show a clear relation between species. Humans have clear genetic similarities to other apes.
.

Yes tell me a little bit about what you understand from that genetics? You share similar genetics with many things, including a banana.. why is it not a separate specie? Also how does a fossil show similarity if they actual highlight is process of phenotypic change over time?

Can you tell me why the fossils found are of our ancestors rather than species that have gone extinct—

Wow trying to do a trick question? Speaking in a general term, the fossils show a progression from one form to another. As for extinction, it doesn’t really matter if they are still alive today or not , what matters is that their children at some point split from their form to another so they can both be our ancestors and extinct or alive. “although in all likely hood they will have had their nitch filled by something similar.” .

How is it a trick question? Are you into making up stories?-- why are they our ancestors as opposed to different species with similar genetics?? I just wrote in my other post.. that every cell in the body shares the same DNA and Genes, yet some express fibroblasts while others express insulin, all nucleated cells have the same machinery. it is very obvious the end product of one is very different from the other though.. So why can't it be in your presented case? This is the formula for the universe--similar mechanics, similar genes... tons of different species....

considering there is a number of things they don't share with us-
……

I left this in even though it wasn’t a question. It is expected that they will have differences since they aren’t us. However genetically we have a genetic ancestor..

again we share genes with everything. so I am not sure what your answer means? We share similar transcription and translation with bacteria, yet somehow we aren't bacteria -- we are human-- why is that?

is evolution reproducible?
Yes

reproducible means we can duplicate it, can do it again to prove it and stick it in the eye of those G-D believing twits.
Fact is that the majority of those evolutionists are as you put it are G-D believing twits.
Apart from your constant hostility, yes it can be reproduced in that it can be observed and observed again. Gravity for example can be observed by dropping a pen. Evo can be observed by watching species change and split over time. .

Yes I was the one who brought your attention to gravity.. why are you using my example here in identical words?
your answer doesn't explain how an ape turns into a human. we have apes now and we have high tech laboratories, able to make graphite into Diamond a process that is laboriously long in nature taking centuries, in a sense that is "evolution"? so it shouldn't be difficult to make an Ape into a human by the same means--- That is actually what reproducible means.. able to be duplicated... Seeing is believing. I want to see that phenomenal event

Show me how any mutation known to us, can cause evolution to a new specie rather than the usual--a state of disease or death or adaptation to one of the previously mentioned types of (-plasias)?
Not any mutations, we are talking about evolution so we are referring to germ line mutations.
And here is a source for you from Berkley, if that isn’t good enough for you then I don’t know what would be. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0/mutations_05
.The basic process is this. A Mutation occurs, it is random, “mind you it likely was caused by something. Examples being damage from a source, imperfect replication etc..” and in all likely hood it will be selected out if the mutation prevents reproduction , if it does not help or hinder then it’s a neutral mutation and no likely change to chance of survival, if its positive in that aids the creature in survival then it is much more likely to be passed on in the gene pool.


So all that post was shortened to that little bit.

Yes I see it shortened.. thankfully, as I am getting sleepy--

now--Why is it hard for you to distil down what Berkeley is saying as per my questions?
show me how a Silent mutation, a nonsense mutation, a missense mutation, a frame shift mutation was able to change any specie into another... these are the mutations known to us through modern science. Don't use vague terms unless you understand what they mean pls.. And previously stated--trinucletoide repeats that cause death yet continue to be passed down, through X linked recessive/ dominant and autosomal dominant patterns. get progressively worst with each generation and yet not wiped out through natural selection! and no, they are not aiding in survival! So take what you have learned and apply it here--- (a mutation that is "random" yet caused by something?) What does that mean to you? You smoke, you induce lung ca. How is that random?

[ranma1/2]

....show me how a Silent mutation, a nonsense mutation, a missense mutation, a frame shift mutation was able to change any specie into another.
I have explained this way to many times, reallll simple this time.
A mutation occurs, it either provides no advantage or disadvantage, or it prodivides an advantage or it provides a disadvantage. Those that provide a advantage have a greater chance of being passed on into the population Negtaive will likely not be passed into the population. Neutral either or.
Of course i assume you know this.

(a mutation that is "random" yet caused by something?)
What does that mean to you?
Ok lets say you expose something to a chemical that increases the mutation rate. It will not cause more mutations that are resistent to that chemical.

You smoke, you induce lung cancer. How is that random?
The mutation itself is brough on by damage. The specific mutation is random and the result due to damage in this case often causes cancer.
Of course your getting off of the topic of mutation related to evo a little bit.

Now how about you tell me what a mutation is ok?

Do you understand that in evo speak we are referring to populations?

Please explain what a species is in terms of evolution?

Do you understand that it is through gradual change that you will get these new species?

[Mr. Baldy]

Wow. i mean wow you dont belive in science?
I can understand wanting to believe something because it doesnt change. It creates a kind of secure feeling but it doesnt mean that it is not wrong.

Science tries to discover the hows and whys and tries to back those up with evidence. If it weren for science you would not have that nice computer you are typing on. Nor modern medicine, nor other technological marvels. So wether you openly accept science or not it influences your life.

no i completley agree with you, science is vital in the developement of man, technology wise. my point was you cant put your faith into something so fickle, which changes so often, and yet each theory is right in its time. it seems very pragmatic.

If you understood the first thing about the story, maybe I would indulge you.

if you understood the quran maybe i would indulge you.

[lavikor201]

if you understood the quran maybe i would indulge you.

You expect me to read the Quran to find out more about the story of the golden calf?

[AB517]

GUYS !!!!!

You are talking in circles.

It is not religion Vs science here.

I find it silly for atheist and believers (I am a new believer) point to on theory like Darwin --bye the way it /he was only the first .... and it is NOT used today in the classroom, no more then Edison first bulb is used in a room.

The mind
To ignore science is to ignore the ground you walk on and yes when we go from a dirt road to a cement sidewalk the scientist will say "The ground just changed” then studies it.

The Heart
We science guys can not ignore the spirit side of things. The imperial data shows many people had spiritual events, like me. What they are, I hope we find out. None the less, many people had them so the reality is that it is there.

God is rational as much as he is loving.

I posted before: Why can’t God have done it through evolution.

The only question is "Do you believe in a higher Power"
Leave out science Vs Religion ... that is not the fight and that’s why you are talking in circles.

Your discussion is Antitheist Vs Believer
You both made good points.

I know God is rational (The language of Math)
I know God loves (Religious Text)
I know he wants us to have free will for if we didn’t he mite as well watch a tree being a tree.

[MustafaMc]

I posted before: Why can’t God have done it through evolution.

The only question is "Do you believe in a higher Power"
Leave out science Vs Religion ... that is not the fight and that’s why you are talking in circles.

I agree with your post. It is a matter of faith. Atheists choose to believe that evolution was/is not controlled by a Higher Power or Intelligent Design; whereas, believers choose to believe that God directed evolution IF that was how we came to be. From my perspective there is no proof available to prove either side wrong.

[ranma1/2]

no i completley agree with you, science is vital in the developement of man, technology wise. my point was you cant put your faith into something so fickle, which changes so often, and yet each theory is right in its time. it seems very pragmatic.



if you understood the quran maybe i would indulge you.

Science is about getting to the answer. it may make you feel good to think you have it and you may ignore evidence that suggests your wrong but with science it says ok this seems to contradict what we though so lets rethink this.

Its like someone saying that they know the answer 100% although they have little or no evidence to back their story,
and someone saying that they are pretty sure that they know it based off of the evidence and they will correct themselves as needed.

Sure it may feel good following the first guy but you wont likely get far.

[ranma1/2]

GUYS !!!!!

You are talking in circles.

It is not religion Vs science here.

I find it silly for atheist and believers (I am a new believer) point to on theory like Darwin --bye the way it /he was only the first .... and it is NOT used today in the classroom, no more then Edison first bulb is used in a room.

The mind
To ignore science is to ignore the ground you walk on and yes when we go from a dirt road to a cement sidewalk the scientist will say "The ground just changed” then studies it.

The Heart
We science guys can not ignore the spirit side of things. The imperial data shows many people had spiritual events, like me. What they are, I hope we find out. None the less, many people had them so the reality is that it is there.

God is rational as much as he is loving.

I posted before: Why can’t God have done it through evolution.

The only question is "Do you believe in a higher Power"
Leave out science Vs Religion ... that is not the fight and that’s why you are talking in circles.

Your discussion is Antitheist Vs Believer
You both made good points.

I know God is rational (The language of Math)
I know God loves (Religious Text)
I know he wants us to have free will for if we didn’t he mite as well watch a tree being a tree.

pretty well said and as you point out, you can be a theist and believe in evolution.

[جوري]

I have explained this way to many times, reallll simple this time.
A mutation occurs, it either provides no advantage or disadvantage, or it prodivides an advantage or it provides a disadvantage. Those that provide a advantage have a greater chance of being passed on into the population Negtaive will likely not be passed into the population. Neutral either or.
Of course i assume you know this.?

That is not a satisfactory answer. It will get you a zero on a test.
There are headings of mutations which I gave you to look up in your wikipdia-- once you cut and pasted them for some reason you couldn't understand what they mean or didn't bother read!--- an example of what I am expecting from you for instance -- is say you take a nonsense mutation-- you go on to explain to me that it is a mutation in a base in the DNA that prematurely stops the translation of messenger RNA resulting in a polypeptide chain that ends prematurely and a protein product that is truncated (abbreviated) and incomplete and usually nonfunctional. The stop codons that cause the mutations are usually (UAG, UAA, and UGA) in simplest terms knowns to those who have done science for humorous purposes (UAG)= U Are Gone--- (UAA)= U Are Away and lastly (UGA) U Go Away...Thus once you see one of those you know you'll have a premature stop thus rendering it a nonsense mutation... Prior also under your evolution thread, I gave you a fine example of what a silent mutation looks like.. I showed you the entire degenerate code... see how simple? now take any of the afore mentioned mutations and give me a different specie with it

(a mutation that is "random" yet caused by something?)
What does that mean to you?
Ok lets say you expose something to a chemical that increases the mutation rate. It will not cause more mutations that are resistent to that chemical.

What are you talking about? Pls give me an intelligent answer.. not the one you can think off out of the top of your head!

You smoke, you induce lung cancer. How is that random?
The mutation itself is brough on by damage. The specific mutation is random and the result due to damage in this case often causes cancer.
Of course your getting off of the topic of mutation related to evo a little bit.

Now how about you tell me what a mutation is ok?

I have given you several headings of mutations tons of times.. and an explanation of how two of them work.. one above and one under the evolution thread.. that particular example was of silent mutation.. the above a nonsense here is the one from previous link http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post710586

here are some others to add to your studies
Point mutation
silent mutation
nonsense mutation
frame shift mutation

to name a few-- do I have to keep repeating them through out the posts? There is no mutation known to man that can cause anything other than death/disease/ or a state of -plasia for the umpteenth time, this time I hope we are clear!

Do you understand that in evo speak we are referring to populations

lol.. is that supposed to mean something to me? show me how populations have evolved? show me how the planet of the apes is now planet of the humans.

Please explain what a species is in terms of evolution?

Why are you asking me of your area of "expertise"? why don't you teach us as well as shed some light on why this question is relevant?

Do you understand that it is through gradual change that you will get these new species?

If it is a gradual change through time, why did you attest to its reproducibility? Can't you keep a story together?

[Mr. Baldy]

Science is about getting to the answer. it may make you feel good to think you have it and you may ignore evidence that suggests your wrong but with science it says ok this seems to contradict what we though so lets rethink this.

Its like someone saying that they know the answer 100% although they have little or no evidence to back their story,
and someone saying that they are pretty sure that they know it based off of the evidence and they will correct themselves as needed.

Sure it may feel good following the first guy but you wont likely get far.

ok so now explain to me how it is anyway rational accepting theories u know cannot be proven. this is what is refered to as faith, no?

[جوري]

GUYS !!!!!

You are talking in circles.

It is not religion Vs science here.

I find it silly for atheist and believers (I am a new believer) point to on theory like Darwin --bye the way it /he was only the first .... and it is NOT used today in the classroom, no more then Edison first bulb is used in a room..

That is because we use Tesla's polyphase alternating current, not edison'! No one is turning it into religion vs science.. no one is using the Quran in this discussion.. we are using what we know of science to better understand old (quasi- scientific) myth

The mind
To ignore science is to ignore the ground you walk on and yes when we go from a dirt road to a cement sidewalk the scientist will say "The ground just changed” then studies it..

Again, I don't think any of the believers here are using anything other than science to make their point!

The Heart
We science guys can not ignore the spirit side of things. The imperial data shows many people had spiritual events, like me. What they are, I hope we find out. None the less, many people had them so the reality is that it is there.

God is rational as much as he is loving. .

I find that all systems work well together... and none adorns, better than hope which isn't something you can define with scientific means.. I am yet to run into "science guys" that ignore the spiritual side of things.. I have no doubt such folks exist.. but they are not the majority.. learning humbles you and turns you on to the magisterate of the engineer behind it all..

I posted before: Why can’t God have done it through evolution..

There is no Question that G-D is behind it all... Some evolutionists use the most convoluted stories to counter act stories of creation.. but their stories aren't any better, sometimes bordering upon absured.. All I think about, when I read one of their well written inferences is something along these lines

The only question is "Do you believe in a higher Power"
Leave out science Vs Religion ... that is not the fight and that’s why you are talking in circles.

Your discussion is Antitheist Vs Believer
You both made good points.

I know God is rational (The language of Math)
I know God loves (Religious Text)
I know he wants us to have free will for if we didn’t he mite as well watch a tree being a tree.

You should visit this.. it is indeed amazing --- A great engineer, architect, artist, mathematician, And an aesthetician, is behind it all...
http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...tml#post717984

with that good night all

[ranma1/2]

PurestAmbrosia
Im getting tired of you being purposefully obtuse. All you are doing is listing types of mutations. You dont understand or you do understand and you are being willfully ignorant. Yes you have listed many types of mutaions, guess what, those are types of mutations. Show me a case where something has mutated a specific responce to its enviroment, you cant becuase mutations are random. Now please anwer my questions so i know that you know what we are talking about. Provide a link if you wish, ill assume will have read it.

[ranma1/2]

ok so now explain to me how it is anyway rational accepting theories u know cannot be proven. this is what is refered to as faith, no?

We accept the scientific theories based on evidence.
Faith "in the relgious sense" is based on no evidence.

I believe that the sun will rise in the morning due to the fact that we know much about the sun and its current condition. We know why the sun rises "or appears to rise". based on that evidence we can theorize it will rise in the morning. It is possible that the earth will blow up before then or the sun or the guy that is dreaming us could wake up etc... etc...

So it is completely rational to accept theories that cant be proven 100% but are shown to be the most likely based onthe evidence. Also if you did not accept a theory then you should try to come up with a better one. Even if its just to make the current theory better.

So essentially is it more logical to believe something that has evidence supporting it or something that has no evidence. I would go for evidence.

[Trumble]

I believe that the sun will rise in the morning due to the fact that we know much about the sun and its current condition. We know why the sun rises "or appears to rise". based on that evidence we can theorize it will rise in the morning.

Really?

I'm on the same 'side' I suppose, but I'll happily admit that I believe the sun will rise every morning 'only' because it has done every day of my life so far and has never shown any signs of not doing it. That reason would be exactly the same were I atheist or committed theist.

[ranma1/2]

Really?

I'm on the same 'side' I suppose, but I'll happily admit that I believe the sun will rise every morning 'only' because it has done every day of my life so far and has never shown any signs of not doing it. That reason would be exactly the same were I atheist or committed theist.

exactly the evidence points to that it will rise tomorrow, of course it might not if the sun or earth blows up.

[Mr. Baldy]

We accept the scientific theories based on evidence.
Faith "in the relgious sense" is based on no evidence.

I believe that the sun will rise in the morning due to the fact that we know much about the sun and its current condition. We know why the sun rises "or appears to rise". based on that evidence we can theorize it will rise in the morning. It is possible that the earth will blow up before then or the sun or the guy that is dreaming us could wake up etc... etc...

So it is completely rational to accept theories that cant be proven 100% but are shown to be the most likely based onthe evidence. Also if you did not accept a theory then you should try to come up with a better one. Even if its just to make the current theory better.

So essentially is it more logical to believe something that has evidence supporting it or something that has no evidence. I would go for evidence.

i disagree, there is alot of evidence for religion, and the existence of god.

you seem to have read bertrand russell, and i think we are spiralling into a rationalist, empiricist debate.

[ranma1/2]

i disagree, there is alot of evidence for religion, and the existence of god.

you seem to have read bertrand russell, and i think we are spiralling into a rationalist, empiricist debate.

evidence for religion, yes. Evidence for god? no. of course then again we need to define the god in each case. Of course that is in general impossible under science .

[Pygoscelis]

I believe the sun will rise every morning 'only' because it has done every day of my life so far and has never shown any signs of not doing it.

Ah! But this also would indicate that you are immortal. :D

Uness you are a zombie that is. :skeleton:

[جوري]

PurestAmbrosia
Im getting tired of you being purposefully obtuse. All you are doing is listing types of mutations. You dont understand or you do understand and you are being willfully ignorant. Yes you have listed many types of mutaions, guess what, those are types of mutations. Show me a case where something has mutated a specific responce to its enviroment, you cant becuase mutations are random. Now please anwer my questions so i know that you know what we are talking about. Provide a link if you wish, ill assume will have read it.

Purposefully obtuse? Answer my questions? Post me links?

Let me tell you exactly what your analogies sound like to me. Or anyone who has done in the very least an
introductory course in molecular bio. and genetics!.... You use the word mutation like someone using the term medication..

well which medication we ask?

you (Oh, I don't know its name --the pt. took a random prescription!)

us-Well here is the list of meds we have in the pharmacy that s/he could have used, pls pick one!--

you (well-- the one whose side affects causes the patient to see purple dots and pink elephants)..

us-Wow, We have a compendium of side affect here and these you propose have never been documented in the PDR

you -(Well, that is because it was random --prove to me it wasn't random.. oh give me sources.. oh it could happen, scientists have hypothesized that this side affect is possible due to interaction with the cytochrome P450 and At Berkeley they stated that thioridizine causes optic neuritis thereby leading us to conclude that one can see purple dots and pink elephants)

us--(how does optic neuritis cause pts. to see purple dots and pink elephants?)

You--(I just posted you an article care to refute it?)

us-- how about you just show us the pathophysiology of that from what you understood from the article in question

you-- ( You are just being Purposefully obtuse)

Us ( and you are being purposefully Fallacious!)

with that concluded we hope you can see how ridiculous you are being? if you can't handle a topic, Don't come in here strutting ultimate knowledge in it, when you don't have simple basic concepts down!

peace!

[ranma1/2]

sigh...
I cant expect any real conversation with you can I?
You have no understanding of evolution. You show no sincerity in these discussions and you constantly try to misdirect. Or you sincerly do not understand why mutations in evo are considered random. If you want please show how the mutations are guided. I have stated time and time again how evo works. You avoid and ignore. Until you act sincere in these discussions im ignoring you again. If you wish to consider that a win then please delude yourself.

[Abdul Fattah]

ranma1/2
I understand what you are trying to say, I'd advice you to avoid the word "random" it's to ambigious.
Ambrosia,
Mainstream evolutionists believe that mutations are not purpose minded. If a mutation is beneficial that is considered coincidence. But so far there is no causal link found originating from an environment going towards the cell and instignating a mutation. You could compare it with an open tap that poors water over a hand. The open tap is mutation and the curvature of the hand is survival of the fittest. The curvature of the hand might dictate the direction in which the water flows, but it does not "cause" the water to flow. Only the open tab (=mutations) can be regarded as "cause".

ID is the belief that these "purposeless" mutation do happen according to a pre-set design. However, from that point on you're no longer talking physics but venturing into belief.

I would suggest learning more about what the word theory means in science.
theories can never be proven. We can be 99.9999 certain they are true but we can never prove a theory.

I would just like to comment on this. Please do not compare the theory of evolution with scientific theories. Just because it uses science doesn't make it a scientific theory by itself.

Scientific theories are based on empirical testing, evolution is based on speculation.
Scientific theories are testable, evolution is not.
Scientific theories are falsifiable, evolution is not.

That is why the with evolution -as opposed to scientific theories- the word theory should be interpreted as an unsubstantiated guess or hunch.

[جوري]

sigh...
I cant expect any real conversation with you can I?.

How Jungian of you-- a refreshing assessment of self --thank you letting us into your subconscious and being insightful for once!

You have no understanding of evolution.

From your hyperbolic soliloquy thus far it would suffice it to say neither do you!

You show no sincerity in these discussions and you constantly try to misdirect. .

Conversely, how are you then sincere? Sincerity comes from dedication to ones craft.. it would exude and leap between the lines from one with intense understanding. It would mean the ability to not just discern what a particular subject means but communicate it to others effectively without resorting to (sighs) or science fiction...
If in fact one is boasting irrefutable science, but you aren't hence, you deal with generalities!... if anyone takes it any deeper, questioning what you understood, your argument becomes circular-- which speaks of a very superficial understanding. You borrow most of you replies to posed questions from threads you have previously read!
You are no scholar-- so pls. don't waste my time... if I wanted an article or a book on evolution, I can visit my local library.
( Irrefutable science)-- would mean that you are not dumbfounded by the basics of the topic you present.. it means that you can take any mutation, random or not (not the point of interest although a topic all its own)-- if this is the basis of evolution as you understand it, and give us a completely different specie with it--or as you prefer the same specie from Ape to human! IT WOULD IN FACT BE REPRODUCIBLE! That is what an Irrefutable science means... else your (science-fiction) is no different from the creation stories to which you don't wish to subscribe as plausible.

Or you sincerly do not understand why mutations in evo are considered random. If you want please show how the mutations are guided. I have stated time and time again how evo works. You avoid and ignore. Until you act sincere in these discussions im ignoring you again. If you wish to consider that a win then please delude yourself.

A "win" what are you 5? Please try to maintain some decorum when replying instead of this incessant need to impulsively write just to have the last word, no matter how poorly it reflects on you! "ignoring" would in fact be a welcome change.. we thank you in advance...

peace!

[ranma1/2]

ranma1/2
I understand what you are trying to say, I'd advice you to avoid the word "random" it's to ambigious.
Ambrosia,
Mainstream evolutionists believe that mutations are not purpose minded. If a mutation is beneficial that is considered coincidence. But so far there is no causal link found originating from an environment going towards the cell and instignating a mutation. You could compare it with an open tap that poors water over a hand. The open tap is mutation and the curvature of the hand is survival of the fittest. The curvature of the hand might dictate the direction in which the water flows, but it does not "cause" the water to flow. Only the open tab (=mutations) can be regarded as "cause".

ID is the belief that these "purposeless" mutation do happen according to a pre-set design. However, from that point on you're no longer talking physics but venturing into belief.


I would just like to comment on this. Please do not compare the theory of evolution with scientific theories. Just because it uses science doesn't make it a scientific theory by itself.

Scientific theories are based on empirical testing, evolution is based on speculation.
Scientific theories are testable, evolution is not.
Scientific theories are falsifiable, evolution is not.

That is why the with evolution -as opposed to scientific theories- the word theory should be interpreted as an unsubstantiated guess or hunch.

True thanks Abdul,

Maybe I should clarify.
There is no evidence to show that these mutations are guided in nature or created in response to a need. Ambrosia seem to imply, without any evidence, that there is something guiding these mutations or that they are created specifically to a need. This just isn’t shown to be true with the evidence. What is shown is that mutation occur randomly “unguided and not in response to need”. Instead mutations occur with a random effect. Those effects are normally either selected in or out of the population depending on how fit they make that creature.
Sickle cell is selected out of most populations where it has a negative effect on fitness and selected in where it has a positive effect. Under the logic that the mutation occurs due to need you wouldnt see sickle cell elsewhere but you do.

As for wether ToE is science you commented that

Scientific theories are based on empirical testing, evolution is based on speculation.
The empirical method is used in evolution. Much information has been gathered from observation and testing, some includes fossils, dna as well lab experiments.

Scientific theories are testable, evolution is not.
As Berkley points out it is definitly testable.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...tscience.shtml
"The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences."

Scientific theories are falsifiable, evolution is not.
It is falsifiable, If you can find a creature that could not have evolved through evolution you can show that that creature did not evolve. An example would be a pegasus or a minotaur. If you find a creature that is in a relationship with another creature with no benefits. If you can finda structure that can not have evolved. There are many falsification criteria. They vary on what you are exactly trying to falsify but there are several.
I think it should also be pointed out that depending on what you mean by falsification. How exactly would one falsify gravity?

Scientific theories in general try to describe how things work based on evidence. The theory of gravity for example tries to explain why things are attracted to each other. The theory of evolution tries to explain the varitey of species. Both of these are equally valid scientific theories.

[lavikor201]

There is a law of physics called "causation." It means, in a nutshell, that everything in the world must a cause. Even accidents have reasons why they ended up the way they did. If someone throws the dice and they land on 9, there were reasons why that happened. The force of the throw, the angle, etc. There is a reason for everything.

And there are reasons for the reasons, too. And reasons for those reasons. Nothing happens without a cause.

Now we have a question: If everything has a cause, and the causes also have a cause, and the causes of the cause also have a cause, etc – are the amount of causes in the chain of causes going all the way back infinite or finite?

Finite. Because it would be impossible that there were an infinite chain of causes without a beginning, for, as we learned, an infinite amount of things cannot happen - infinity is not the "biggest number"; rather, it is a number that can never be reached. Therefore, you can never have an infinite number of anything in this world.

And if so, if we cannot have a chain of causes without any beginning, there had to be a beginning - a First Cause, which itself had no cause at all.

This means, that this first cause has no reason or reasons for why it is; nothing created it, nothing makes it what it is. This First Cause is what we refer to as “Hashem”.

The snake has some kinda protective sack that makes protects it from the poison.

Now, as the snake was developing (sic), which came first: The poison or the sack? If the poison, then snakes wouold have immediately become extinct, since they would have all poisoned itself. If the sack, then why would a sack develop and remain if there was no poison to protect it from?
Obvioiusly the poison and the sack had to come at the same time. And that can only happen through Hashem.

[جوري]

Ambrosia seem to imply, without any evidence, that there is something guiding these mutations or that they are created specifically to a need. .

What Ambrosia is implying isn't whether a mutation is random or not, (though I don't believe every mutation to be random) that is a very vestigial point in this argument! And shows me how much you have read and understood from previous posts--the crux of yours however, is random mutations occurring over time lead to evolution, thereby changing one specie to another. (Ape to man)-- what you fail to do however, is assign a name to that "random mutation".. when every mutation known to man, its pathophysiology, as well as outcome are recorded. You only dazzle us with generalities.

We have given you headings and several examples on how mutations work, and told you through countless posts, that a mutation causes nothing but a state of death, disease, no change at all-- or a (-plasia), and further putting a nick in your theory of (random selection) by attesting that through Trinucleotide repeat, a specie doesn't get selected out.. or perish, rather continues to get worst over time with every successive generation--that is factual science and can be verified from any entry level book on molecular biology or genetics--As well as can be seen in human subjects! ..

You have all the labs you need to prove your point, so why not put your money where your mouth is, instead of cutting and pasting the work of other people, look for something else to hang all your strength and faith on. The very citadel of your argument has failed you least as a verifiable "scientific fact"!

[Abdul Fattah]

Personally I think ToE is not based on testing nor is it falsifiable. As for the many tests and falsifications people come up with, they just don't seem to cut the mustard. At least, if you ask me they don't. But I had recently made a resolve no longer to indulge in head-on debates. So although right now I'm extremely tempted, instead of defending my case I'm just going to invite you to think it over for yourself.

I will give you two open questions though: (I don't require an answer, my mind is already firmly made up, they are purely put forward in an attempt to be thought-provoking)

For testability of a theory, is there a difference between testing a theory directly (like dropping an apple to the floor to see if it falls), and backing a theory up with tests (like proving a certain creature did indeed live in that era by carbon dating it)?

For falsification. When I claim I have a rock that wards of tigers. And I point out to the fact that there are no tigers in the vicinity of that rock, is that sufficient as falsification?

That being said, I guess all that's left is to agree to disagree.

[ajazz]

NO scientist thinks darwin is a fact.

Argument From Authority

People that change their minds in the present of truth. Is that a bad thing?

People confuse opinions, observations, conclusions as truth ignoring hard facts is that a
Good thing?

Satan takes many forms and uses many tools.
There is plenty of history to proove religous people did exactly the same thing.

Yes and his tool includes Darwin's theory of evolution

Prsent theory:
Puncuated equilibrium: slow progress (adaptations) and then every so often quick changes
(new species).

Future theory: punctured equilibrium!!!



Evolutionist believes that Darwin's theory of evolution is scientific but the truth is, it is just conclusions formed by observing fossils and species.
Darwin observed this and Darwin observed that, Darwin concluded this and Darwin concluded that.

Unlike big bang theory which is validated by
Astronomers who combined mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be.
These mathematical models included Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity
And a standard theory of fundamental particles and the observation was done by Hubble Space Telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope.

If the Big Bang model is correct, the proportion of helium in the Universe should be
Approximately 24% and this is what was observed


Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature :D

NASA has several missions to study gravitational waves

LISA (Laser Interferometry Space Antenna)

INFLATION PROBE will seek the imprint of gravitational waves on the relic cosmic microwave
Background by observing the polarization of the background photons.

BIG BANG Observer is a gravitational wave detector


Now compare this with Darwin's theory of evolution
There is no fossil record to show intermediate state of evolution all the fossil record
Show fully formed species, there are no fossil to show any gradually changing species, his theory does not stand scrutiny at molecular level.
To fill these gaping holes in his theory Stephen Jay Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium but unwittingly he ended up discrediting Darwin's theory of evolution for this
He was criticized heavily by his fellowmen


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“but was criticized by some in the biological community who felt his public presentations
were,in various respects, out of step with mainstream evolutionary theory."

"The eminent John Maynard Smith{evolutionary biologist } was among Gould's stronges
critics. Maynard Smith thought that Gould trivialized the role of adaptation, and
criticized Gould's periodic invocation of large scale mutations.
In a recent review of Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Maynard Smith wrote
That Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary
Theory."

"Gould's interpretation of the Cambrian Burgess Shale fossils in his book Wonderful Life
was criticized by Simon Conway Morris in his 1998 book The Crucible Of Creation."

http://www.answers.com/topic/stephen-jay-gould
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to such heavy criticisms Gould went back to drawing board and made some changes to his
theory but ended up messing it up further


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

Scientists' Research and Darwinism


"In the past 25 years, Eldredge and Gould have proposed so many different versions of their
theory that it is difficult to describe it with any accuracy. If a scientific theory is to
be of any value as a tool for exploring the real world, it must have some stability as a
set of propositions open to empirical test. Punctuated equilibrium has undergone so many
transformations that it is hard to distinguish its core of truth from the "statement that
morphological evolution sometimes occurs episodically."

The above quotation by Jerry A. Coyne and Brian Charlesworth, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, appeared in Science, Volume 276, Number 5311, 18 April 1997, pp. 337-341.



""How did a very complex molecule, DNA, occur when the best that can happen
naturalistically is for chemicals to form amino acids?" 2. "Even given DNA, how did we
obtain the intricate genetic information it contains from chemicals, which have no genetic
information at all?" How does something come from nothing? Are evolutionists calling for
miracles here, under the name of science? There is no genetic information in chemicals to
mutate and no genetic information to undergo natural selection - mutation and natural
selection being two mainstays of current evolutionary thinking. Also, there is no process
that scientists know of, whereby amino acids naturally form DNA. Given these
considerations, how can any clearly thinking person claim that we came from only chemicals?
Yet some people do, so it would seem that their faith in a naturalistic worldview overrides
reason."


this is a good read visit the link

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

very true, many creation stories storyies have been around before we
(scientist) found them. I think this way cool. If man can dream it ... God has probably
done it already.

AB

I notice you saying god can do this god can do that.
There are certain things god (Allah) does not do.
Allah does not sleep, Allah does not get tired, and Allah does not produce children, but Allah Has power over everything.

And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and Allah has power over all things.
(Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #189)


As a citizen of any country a person has the right and responsibility to uphold the
Constitution and laws of the country they belong to and they are liable to be punished if
They break the law, similarly since you acknowledge the existence of god and he is the
Creator of the whole universe it is incumbent on you that you find the true god and follow
His constitution and laws otherwise you are liable to be punished.
Hence you must state your concept of god and not just vaguely some sort of god who can do
Anything (Allah does not do just anything) , this is for your own benefit.

By the way Zulu believe in the god Nkulunkulu.



.

[ranma1/2]

Hi Lavikor,

There is a law of physics called "causation." It means, in a nutshell, that everything in the world must a cause.....

Now we have a question: If everything has a cause, and the causes also have a cause, and the causes of the cause also have a cause, etc – are the amount of causes in the chain of causes going all the way back infinite or finite?

Finite. Because it would be impossible that there were an infinite chain of causes without a beginning, for, as we learned, an infinite amount of things cannot happen - infinity is not the "biggest number"; rather, it is a number that can never be reached. ...

And if so, if we cannot have a chain of causes without any beginning, there had to be a beginning - a First Cause, which itself had no cause at all.

This means, that this first cause has no reason or reasons for why it is; nothing created it, nothing makes it what it is. This First Cause is what we refer to as “Hashem”.

Infinite univers? who knows. I could go into big crunch, big bang and such but thats beside the point. If there was a first cause why cant there be many unrealted first causes. Also this first cause doesnt need to be intellegent or even living.

The snake has some kinda protective sack that makes protects it from the poison.

Now, as the snake was developing (sic), which came first: The poison or the sack? If the poison, then snakes wouold have immediately become extinct, since they would have all poisoned itself. If the sack, then why would a sack develop and remain if there was no poison to protect it from?
Obvioiusly the poison and the sack had to come at the same time. And that can only happen through Hashem.

By sack are you referring to the glands that hold the venom? Venom itself is a modifcation of saliva. As the saliva became more deadly the snakes that either were immune to their poison or developed other defences would be selected into the population over those that didnt.

[lavikor201]

By sack are you referring to the glands that hold the venom? Venom itself is a modifcation of saliva. As the saliva became more deadly the snakes that either were immune to their poison or developed other defences would be selected into the population over those that didnt.

I expected such an answer. :rollseyes

[MustafaMc]

....show me how a Silent mutation, a nonsense mutation, a missense mutation, a frame shift mutation was able to change any specie into another.
I have explained this way to many times, reallll simple this time.
A mutation occurs, it either provides no advantage or disadvantage, or it prodivides an advantage or it provides a disadvantage. Those that provide a advantage have a greater chance of being passed on into the population Negtaive will likely not be passed into the population. Neutral either or.
Of course i assume you know this.

Yes, I understand that evolution refers to population changes, but these start as individual changes that have supposedly enhanced adaptive ability.

One thing I don't understand is how "random" (as opposed to ID) evolutionists attribute the creation of new species to a random, destructive process. Note: how many superior mutations did Hiroshima and Chernobyl give us that we are now more fit as a species?

This evolution is assumed to be a progressive process starting from an original seminal "common ancestor". The human species is assumed to have evolved from the bactria - not the bacteria evolve from humans. Both of these are absolutely ludicrous to me without a Higher Power directing the whole thing.

My contention is that the original, unmutated, DNA coded for the most perfect protein and that nearly all mutations are recessive and lethal or otherwise render the offspring less - not more - fit when homozygous. Prime example is sickle cell anemia.

If there a million trees growing in an area with tremondously high iron deposits, how long must we wait for two 2"x4" boards to be randomly nailed together by 16d nails? how long to wait for a 3-bedroom house to randomly appear?

[ranma1/2]

I expected such an answer. :rollseyes

well thats roughly what evolution does.

[ranma1/2]

Hi Mustafa,
First i would like to say it is always a pleasure to have civil conversations with members like you.

One thing I don't understand is how evolutionists attribute the creation of new species to a random, destructive process.

Could you clarify what process? Evolution? Mutation?


Note: how many superior mutations did Hiroshima and Chernobyl give us that we are now more fit as a species?

Mutations only matter if they are the type that can be transferred to the next generation of off spring. The mutations caused by Chernobyl and Hiroshima in general where fatal and not of the type to be passed on. It also should be pointed out that humans have to a point put themselves out of natural selection.
So looking at nature, animals that through mutations had a characteristic that gave an advantage would more likely live. In the case of Hiroshima i would almost expect to see some animals with some sort of radiation resistence.

This evolution is assumed to be a progressive process starting from an original seminal "common ancestor". The human species is assumed to have evolved from the bacteria - not the bacteria evolve from humans. Both of these are absolutely ludicrous to me without a Higher Power directing the whole thing.

As stated before there is evidence in both structures, fossils and dna.
The entire phylogenetic tree is evidence that everything had a common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

Evidence for humans having a common ancestor with other apes include genetic similarities with dna and a fused chromosome.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html



My contention is that the original, unmutated, DNA coded for the most perfect protein and that nearly all mutations are recessive and lethal or otherwise render the offspring less - not more - fit when homozygous. Prime example is sickle cell anemia.]

Im not sure if i understand what do you mean by Perfect protein?
Mutations however are not all lethal. And some that may be lethal in some instances may be benefital in others. Sickle cell vs malaria.
Also sense positive mutatations are more likely to be selected in to the population you will see a natural trend torward improvement somehow.


argh.. got to go to class.

[MustafaMc]

Could you clarify what process? Evolution? Mutation?

Mutation seems to be the foundation for genetic changes that selection pressure acts on. My knowledge of mutation is that it is predominantly destructive.

Mutations only matter if they are the type that can be transferred to the next generation of off spring. The mutations caused by Chernobyl and Hiroshima in general where fatal and not of the type to be passed on. It also should be pointed out that humans have to a point put themselves out of natural selection.
So looking at nature, animals that through mutations had a characteristic that gave an advantage would more likely live. In the case of Hiroshima i would almost expect to see some animals with some sort of radiation resistence.

Well aren't there genetic mutations induced by these nuclear disasters along with depleted uranium used by US in anti-tank weaponry passed on to the next generation? Yes, humans have reached a point where even the weak survive and reproduce. I believe that last statement is a bit far fetched "radiation resistance". How about selection for resistance to a bullet in the back of the head?

As stated before there is evidence in both structures, fossils and dna.
The entire phylogenetic tree is evidence that everything had a common ancestor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree

Evidence for humans having a common ancestor with other apes include genetic similarities with dna and a fused chromosome.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html

No, this proves nothing. Just because there is similarity of DNA between organisms it doesn't mean they derived from a common ancestor. What it means to me is that they were created from similar "building blocks". Just because a 3-bedroom house and the Empire State Building have some of the same materials, doesn't mean one evolved from the other. You would expect houses on the same block to be "more related" than a factory in another country.

Im not sure if i understand what do you mean by Perfect protein?
Mutations however are not all lethal. And some that may be lethal in some instances may be benefital in others. Sickle cell vs malaria.
Also sense positive mutatations are more likely to be selected in to the population you will see a natural trend torward improvement somehow.

The structure of proteins amazes me. The linking of amino acids in a particular order to form a certain sequence that then folds in upon itself in a three-dimensional form and often forming complexes with other transcriptional products. How changes in just 1 out of hundreds of nucleic acids in DNA can render the resulting protein non-functional demonstrates the destructive nature of mutations. However, occassionally there are changes that are good. When a person has only one copy of the Sickle Cell gene, then he is much more likely to survive Malaria. In the homozygous state, this gene renders the individual less fit.

[AB517]

Argument From Authority




People confuse opinions, observations, conclusions as truth ignoring hard facts is that a
Good thing?




Yes and his tool includes Darwin's theory of evolution





Future theory: punctured equilibrium!!!



Evolutionist believes that Darwin's theory of evolution is scientific but the truth is, it is just conclusions formed by observing fossils and species.
Darwin observed this and Darwin observed that, Darwin concluded this and Darwin concluded that.

Unlike big bang theory which is validated by
Astronomers who combined mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be.
These mathematical models included Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity
And a standard theory of fundamental particles and the observation was done by Hubble Space Telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope.

If the Big Bang model is correct, the proportion of helium in the Universe should be
Approximately 24% and this is what was observed


Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces of nature :D

NASA has several missions to study gravitational waves

LISA (Laser Interferometry Space Antenna)

INFLATION PROBE will seek the imprint of gravitational waves on the relic cosmic microwave
Background by observing the polarization of the background photons.

BIG BANG Observer is a gravitational wave detector


Now compare this with Darwin's theory of evolution
There is no fossil record to show intermediate state of evolution all the fossil record
Show fully formed species, there are no fossil to show any gradually changing species, his theory does not stand scrutiny at molecular level.
To fill these gaping holes in his theory Stephen Jay Gould proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium but unwittingly he ended up discrediting Darwin's theory of evolution for this
He was criticized heavily by his fellowmen


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


“but was criticized by some in the biological community who felt his public presentations
were,in various respects, out of step with mainstream evolutionary theory."

"The eminent John Maynard Smith{evolutionary biologist } was among Gould's stronges
critics. Maynard Smith thought that Gould trivialized the role of adaptation, and
criticized Gould's periodic invocation of large scale mutations.
In a recent review of Daniel Dennett's book Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Maynard Smith wrote
That Gould "is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary
Theory."

"Gould's interpretation of the Cambrian Burgess Shale fossils in his book Wonderful Life
was criticized by Simon Conway Morris in his 1998 book The Crucible Of Creation."

http://www.answers.com/topic/stephen-jay-gould
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Due to such heavy criticisms Gould went back to drawing board and made some changes to his
theory but ended up messing it up further


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

Scientists' Research and Darwinism


"In the past 25 years, Eldredge and Gould have proposed so many different versions of their
theory that it is difficult to describe it with any accuracy. If a scientific theory is to
be of any value as a tool for exploring the real world, it must have some stability as a
set of propositions open to empirical test. Punctuated equilibrium has undergone so many
transformations that it is hard to distinguish its core of truth from the "statement that
morphological evolution sometimes occurs episodically."

The above quotation by Jerry A. Coyne and Brian Charlesworth, Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, appeared in Science, Volume 276, Number 5311, 18 April 1997, pp. 337-341.



""How did a very complex molecule, DNA, occur when the best that can happen
naturalistically is for chemicals to form amino acids?" 2. "Even given DNA, how did we
obtain the intricate genetic information it contains from chemicals, which have no genetic
information at all?" How does something come from nothing? Are evolutionists calling for
miracles here, under the name of science? There is no genetic information in chemicals to
mutate and no genetic information to undergo natural selection - mutation and natural
selection being two mainstays of current evolutionary thinking. Also, there is no process
that scientists know of, whereby amino acids naturally form DNA. Given these
considerations, how can any clearly thinking person claim that we came from only chemicals?
Yet some people do, so it would seem that their faith in a naturalistic worldview overrides
reason."


this is a good read visit the link

http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/Noev.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------







I notice you saying god can do this god can do that.
There are certain things god (Allah) does not do.
Allah does not sleep, Allah does not get tired, and Allah does not produce children, but Allah Has power over everything.

And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and Allah has power over all things.
(Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #189)


As a citizen of any country a person has the right and responsibility to uphold the
Constitution and laws of the country they belong to and they are liable to be punished if
They break the law, similarly since you acknowledge the existence of god and he is the
Creator of the whole universe it is incumbent on you that you find the true god and follow
His constitution and laws otherwise you are liable to be punished.
Hence you must state your concept of god and not just vaguely some sort of god who can do
Anything (Allah does not do just anything) , this is for your own benefit.

By the way Zulu believe in the god Nkulunkulu.



.

This probly will be my last post here.

These kinds of staments are dangerous.

You are the kind of people (not muslem here ... just this guy ... we have them in christianity too) that I tell people to watch out for, they sound good enough, but they are false prophets. God is bigger than you, please try and listen to him...

or ...
Go put your head back in the sand.

I qoute you here.
"People confuse opinions, observations, conclusions as truth ignoring hard facts is that a
Good thing?"

This is just sick dude.


AB

[ranma1/2]

Hi again Mustafa,

Mutation seems to be the foundation for genetic changes that selection pressure acts on. My knowledge of mutation is that it is predominantly destructive.

Correct mutation is the foundation for change. Without change everything would be the same. And although that the majority of mutations are destructive the fact that they are destructive means that they wont be passed on into the population. Those few positive mutations will be passed on.


Well aren't there genetic mutations induced by these nuclear disasters along with depleted uranium used by US in anti-tank weaponry passed on to the next generation?
Regardless of how the mutation occurs, if the mutation is not a germline mutation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germline_mutation
it wont be passed on. Also if the creature dies before it reproduces it wont be passed on.



Yes, humans have reached a point where even the weak survive and reproduce.
However outside of industrialized society you can still see human populations evolving persay. In parts of africa you can find people with extraordinary eyesite. This eyesite is used to spy game and predators in the plains.

I believe that last statement is a bit far fetched "radiation resistance". How about selection for resistance to a bullet in the back of the head?
Radiation resistence is not as farfetched as you may think. If a member of the population is suddenly fitter than others and the others either die out or dont reproduce as much that extra fitness will be have a greater chance or being spread throughout the population.
There are bacteria that have extreme resistence to radiation as compared to humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans

No, this proves nothing. Just because there is similarity of DNA between organisms it doesn't mean they derived from a common ancestor.

Correct, however it is evidence that we do. Also its not just similarity in dna but in many other aspects. Through the tree i showed you eariler there is a clear progression from one form to another. Those that are closer to us in that tree have much closer dna similarities. I could go on into how we share in our dna with apes past diseases or viruses that have been added to our dna but i dont have a source at the moment.

What it means to me is that they were created from similar "building blocks". ...
What would the alternative be? if you are saying a god created us as is then why model us after apes down to the ability of not being able to manufacture vitamin c? Not to mention being so imperfectly made. "I hate my glasses."


The structure of proteins amazes me. The linking of amino acids in a particular order to form a certain sequence that then folds in upon itself in a three-dimensional form and often forming complexes with other transcriptional products. How changes in just 1 out of hundreds of nucleic acids in DNA can render the resulting protein non-functional demonstrates the destructive nature of mutations.
Correct and those bad mutations wont usually get passed on. Good ones however do.

However, occassionally there are changes that are good.
So whats the problem then? You seem to realize that good mutations get passed on while bad ones dont.

[ranma1/2]

This probly will be my last post here.

These kinds of staments are dangerous.

You are the kind of people (not muslem here ... just this guy ... we have them in christianity too) that I tell people to watch out for, they sound good enough, but they are false prophets. God is bigger than you, please try and listen to him...

or ...
Go put your head back in the sand.

I qoute you here.
"People confuse opinions, observations, conclusions as truth ignoring hard facts is that a
Good thing?"

This is just sick dude.


AB

He lost me at evolution is a tool of the devil.

[MustafaMc]

However outside of industrialized society you can still see human populations evolving persay. In parts of africa you can find people with extraordinary eyesite. This eyesite is used to spy game and predators in the plains

Yes, and I agree with most of your post here.

Radiation resistence is not as farfetched as you may think. If a member of the population is suddenly fitter than others and the others either die out or dont reproduce as much that extra fitness will be have a greater chance or being spread throughout the population.
There are bacteria that have extreme resistence to radiation as compared to humans. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans

I don't disagree that some organisms may survive a nuclear holocaust, but what about the probability of higher life forms (humans) surviving?

What would the alternative be? if you are saying a god created us as is then why model us after apes down to the ability of not being able to manufacture vitamin c? Not to mention being so imperfectly made. "I hate my glasses."

You make a good point, but I don't see that He modeled us after apes. I see that he created some things more similar than others. Structurally and genetically we are similar to apes. Another thing is that (Muslims may be repulsed, but..) humans also have a lot of anatomical and physiological similarity to swine.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/swine/swine.htm "Swine have increasingly become utilized as biomedical research models in the last two decades. This increased use as an animal model is not only a result of regulatory pressure on other large animal species, but also because swine are recognized as a suitable animal model for human disease based upon their comparative anatomy and physiology. Swine are used as general surgical models of most organs and systems, for cardiovascular research including atherosclerosis, for digestive system models, and in recent years in transplantation and xenografic research."

However, do evolutionists put humans and pigs close together on the evolutionary tree?

[ranma1/2]

I don't disagree that some organisms may survive a nuclear holocaust, but what about the probability of higher life forms (humans) surviving?

It would depend on how close they were to the event. As for having a mutation that makes them more resistant, if one did have one then those without it would more likely die out. Of course no human has resistenct like the bacteria from earlier.

You make a good point, but I don't see that He modeled us after apes. I see that he created some things more similar than others. Structurally and genetically we are similar to apes. Another thing is that (Muslims may be repulsed, but..) humans also have a lot of anatomical and physiological similarity to swine.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/swine/swine.htm

You should look up glowing pigs and see how they are planning on being used in humans.


However, do evolutionists put humans and pigs close together on the evolutionary tree?[/QUOTE]

Compared to what? They are not as close as other apes.

Humans Pigs

Kingdom: Animalia Animalia
Phylum: Chordata Chordata
Class: Mammalia Mammalia
Order: Primates Artiodactyla

This website goesinto much more detail and i would recomend checking it out. You pretty much can start at the roots of the tree and see how it is classified. Unfortunatly it is a little out of date but its a good start.
http://tolweb.org/Eutheria/15997
and of course a wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutheria

[ajazz]

A very good read visit the site

"The "origin of life" (OOL) is best described as the chemical and physical processes that brought into existence the first self-replicating molecule. It differs from the "evolution of life" because Darwinian evolution employs mutation and natural selection to change organisms, which requires reproduction. Since there was no reproduction before the first life, no "mutation - selection" mechanism was operating to build complexity. Hence, OOL theories cannot rely upon natural selection to increase complexity and must create the first life using only the laws of chemistry and physics."



http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/archives/origlife.htm



Mathematical Probabilities

" Morowitz's approach, in his Energy Flow in Biology (1968) was to calculate the probability of chance fluctuations generating enough energy for the bond formation that molecules needed for a living cell. For an ocean of the correct molecules needed to make a minimal cell, this would be one chance in 10399,999,866, again, basically an impossibility."


" As Pasteur's and others' experiments indicate, life does not occur spontaneously anywhere. Also, they imply that life did not occur at any time past. Additionally, the mathematical approach eliminates the option of life naturally occurring, either terrestrially or extraterrestrially. That leaves only the supernatural option. Life had to be created. It could not have happened by chance."





http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/CHEM.htm



O mankind! Be dutiful to your Lord, Who created you from a single person (adam), and from him (adam) He created his wife (Hawwa (Eve)), and from them both He created many men and women and fear Allah through Whom you demand your mutual (rights), and (do not cut the relations of) the wombs (kinship). Surely, Allah is Ever an AllWatcher over you.
( An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #1)

here Allah says all human beings have come from single human being ie Adam(pbuh)



And Allah has created from water every living creature: so of them is that which walks upon its belly, and of them is that which walks upon two feet, and of them is that which walks upon four; Allah creates what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things.
(An-Noor, Chapter #24, Verse #45)


here Allah says he created all living creatures from water but he does not say they all came from single creature as is the case with Adam(pbuh)


since Allah is absolute truth, all the true things i have said are from Allah
and any wrong information or explanation that i may have given unintentionally is from me and i ask forgiveness from Allah and guidance from him.








.

[ranma1/2]

Howdy Ajazz,

"The "origin of life" (OOL) is best described as the chemical and physical processes that brought into existence the first self-replicating molecule.
It differs from the "evolution of life" because Darwinian evolution employs mutation and natural selection to change organisms, which requires reproduction. Since there was no reproduction before the first life, no "mutation - selection" mechanism was operating to build complexity. Hence, OOL theories cannot rely upon natural selection to increase complexity and must create the first life using only the laws of chemistry and physics."
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/archives/origlife.htm
Um im not sure what your point is with this article, evolution does not try to describe how life began that is of course abiogenisis.

Mathematical Probabilities

" Morowitz's approach, in his Energy Flow in Biology (1968) was to calculate the probability of chance fluctuations generating enough energy for the bond formation that molecules needed for a living cell. For an ocean of the correct molecules needed to make a minimal cell, this would be one chance in 10399,999,866, again, basically an impossibility."

Hardly. I have seen lottery ticket winners with worst chances. And remember life would have started to begin once the first self replication molecules where formed. Given enough matter and enough time its just about gauranteed.


" As Pasteur's and others' experiments indicate, life does not occur spontaneously anywhere. Also, they imply that life did not occur at any time past. Additionally, the mathematical approach eliminates the option of life naturally occurring, either terrestrially or extraterrestrially. That leaves only the supernatural option. Life had to be created. It could not have happened by chance."
http://personal.georgiasouthern.edu/~etmcmull/CHEM.htm
Now you are misleading, their experiments were that life could not sprout in full "flies from meat and mice from grain." They never ever did anything related to first life or abiogenisis. And i have already shown your mathmatical concept is flawed. Now with the supernatural option you need to explain how that came into being.





since Allah is absolute truth, all the true things i have said are from Allah
and any wrong information or explanation that i may have given unintentionally is from me and i ask forgiveness from Allah and guidance from him.

I wouldnt declare your words are from Alah, im pretty sure thats a no no but i might be mistaken.

[Woodrow]

One problem I find with all theories on the concept of how evolution occurs. None of them seem to address how death evolved. Death does not seem to be a very healthy attribute for an organism to have.

If life is the result of random chance, so must death be.

Going a step further why is their death? Unless a dead organism has been physically destroyed, is it not the same material it was while it was alive?

So let us say that all of this events occur by chance. That can explain how we can end up with a 2 legged 6 foot tall lump of matter called man. But, the question is why is it alive?

The question I want answered is not how evolution can explain the existence of a pile of matter that looks like an Elephant, but rather why is the elephant alive.

[Keltoi]

One problem I find with all theories on the concept of how evolution occurs. None of them seem to address how death evolved. Death does not seem to be a very healthy attribute for an organism to have.

If life is the result of random chance, so must death be.

Going a step further why is their death? Unless a dead organism has been physically destroyed, is it not the same material it was while it was alive?

So let us say that all of this events occur by chance. That can explain how we can end up with a 2 legged 6 foot tall lump of matter called man. But, the question is why is it alive?

The question I want answered is not how evolution can explain the existence of a pile of matter that looks like an Elephant, but rather why is the elephant alive.

That does get to the heart of the matter doesn't it?

[Woodrow]

That does get to the heart of the matter doesn't it?

That suddenly hit me.

I remembered as a kid for a science fair project I did some interesting projects with crystals. It is fairly easy for even a 14 year old to make self replicating crystals. But, they are not alive. So the question is not so much "How did the lump of matter evolve", the question should be "What is Life? And how could Life evolve."

[جوري]

One problem I find with all theories on the concept of how evolution occurs. None of them seem to address how death evolved. Death does not seem to be a very healthy attribute for an organism to have.

If life is the result of random chance, so must death be.

Going a step further why is their death? Unless a dead organism has been physically destroyed, is it not the same material it was while it was alive?

So let us say that all of this events occur by chance. That can explain how we can end up with a 2 legged 6 foot tall lump of matter called man. But, the question is why is it alive?

The question I want answered is not how evolution can explain the existence of a pile of matter that looks like an Elephant, but rather why is the elephant alive.

I'd have to agree with you, on that observation... but I have much more serious problems with the theory of evolution from a cellular level-- It makes no sense.. unless you keep it in the realms of science fiction or under very strict general topics.
for instance when someone states

Correct mutation is the foundation for change. Without change everything would be the same. And although that the majority of mutations are destructive the fact that they are destructive means that they wont be passed on into the population. Those few positive mutations will be passed on.".

You'll notice a term like "mutation is the foundation of change".. well change into what? a change into a diseased state.. a change into spontaneous abortion, a change into not working as well, or no change at all. is in fact what has been observed from any mutation known to man. We have very much advanced in the field of molecular biology, that any number of possibilities are documented, through mode of action, pathophysiology and outcome-- further very destructive genes can and are being passed down to generations. To put it in very simple terms--Many genes normally contain a trinucleotide repeat which is present several times. When the number of trinucleotide repeats increases to a larger than normal number of copies, the DNA is altered, and the gene may not function properly, or may not work at all.

{{{Sometimes, a person may have more than the usual number of copies, but not enough to alter the function of the gene. These individuals are referred to as "premutation carriers." When they pass on these extra copies to a child, however, the extra trinucleotide repeats cause the DNA to become unstable, and the area of DNA expands even more. The result is that the child has a gene that no longer functions, or is not functioning properly and they are said to have the "full mutation." An example of a trinucleotide repeat disease is Fragile-X syndrome. }}} http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu.../trinucleo.cfm

You can imagine due to the X linked inheritance of this, that it will and in fact is passed down for generations, the females are carriers and in turn this syndrome is present only in boys. I don't wish to get into what sort of genes get methylated or become non functional ( It is a very expansive topic) however, every generation thereof has more of these trinucleotide repeats.. they don't wipe themselves out, and they certainly don't become another specie... what happens is the degree of mental retardation becomes more severe with every generation... Same thing with Huntington's disease, except in that trinucleotide repeat, the person dies earlier and earlier with each successive generation... Some of the older members of this forums who may have listened to country songs may remember someone named 'Woody' Guthrie' who in fact died of this early on, and people were afraid the lethal genes were passed on to his kid-- another country singer whose name I can't remember at the moment, but he was spared... undoubtedly due to the autosomal dominant nature of the disease he is a carrier, and a strong chance he has passed the lethal genes to one of his off spring...the result of this will be early death, but they will not be wipe themselves out--- I don't wish to go further into what it means to have a germline mutation.. because this can be an all day lecture, frankly I don't have that kind of time.. but if I am to stand firm on a point (evolution) in this case, I'd really have to cover all grounds, not just pass generalizations and random statements of mutations or glowing pigs...



we already use porcine valves in humans, along with immunosuppressive therapy-- more often than not, I am lost and confused about the point the evolutionists are trying to make... putting a (phylum) or a (kingdom) in a topic doesn't loan it credence or qualify it as a heading for evolution. under Class Mammalia you'll find everything from Armadillos, to whales to humans.. I am very confused as to how or why that would qualify us as having evolved from such creatures, as opposed to simply having similarities with them? Further what is the name of this amazing mutation that would cause such a radical change?


Evolution becomes very flawed when it comes down to very specific detail... life is very detailed. Every cell has multitudes of functions and run like clock works... I am not trying to make a case for G-D, to be honest, it doesn't matter to me on the long run who believes in what, I much rather worry about my own pursuits, however, Darwin by today's standards is no scholar.. What he was is a cultist and started a cult of loyal fans, under the guise of science-- who go into extremes, albeit extremes in generality to prove his points. But they are really not holding up when put to the test.



my two cents

:w:

[ranma1/2]

....

The question I want answered is not how evolution can explain the existence of a pile of matter that looks like an Elephant, but rather why is the elephant alive.

Its alive in because it falls under what we classify as alive. I guess im not sure what you mean by alive.

[Woodrow]

Its alive in because it falls under what we classify as alive. I guess im not sure what you mean by alive.

It does not matter how you define life. The question is how can life cease without total destruction of the organism? How does a live mouse differ from a fresh dead mouse. Chemically and structurally they are the same. If life is a spontaneously occurring event, There should be no problem in finding a means to jump start a dead mouse so that it is once again alive.

[Pygoscelis]

I find the question "Why did death evolve" rather ridiculous. Death is a integral and necesary part of evolution. There is no survival of the fittest without death.

I do like the question of what separates a live mouse from a fresh dead one though. I think the answer would be the processes going on within said specimen. But how to jump start that in a dead one is an interesting question. If we could answer that maybe we could find imortality!

[جوري]

I find the question "Why did death evolve" rather ridiculous. Death is a integral and necesary part of evolution. There is no survival of the fittest without death.
!

ha? how then do you explain the unfit that survive and pass down unfit genes for generations? while very seemingly fit can suffer a spontaneous death?

[Pygoscelis]

ha? how then do you explain the unfit that survive and pass down unfit genes for generations? while very seemingly fit can suffer a spontaneous death?

If the "unfit" did so to a majority and outbred and outsurvived the fit, then you'd have the labels fit and unfit reversed.

Evolution is all about reproducton and survival rates of various mutations and non-mutations, is it not?

[جوري]

If the "unfit" did so to a majority and outbred and outsurvived the fit, then you'd have the labels fit and unfit reversed.

That is very cryptic..I am not sure what you are trying to say as it relates to "There is no survival of the fittest without death"

Evolution is all about reproducton and survival rates of various mutations and non-mutations, is it not?

I don't know what your understanding is of evolution? as per dictionary it is a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state -- If your statement is satisfactory as fits with your life, then I have absolutely no reservation with how you define it-- so long as we are clear that it is a belief and not science!

peace!

[ranma1/2]

ha? how then do you explain the unfit that survive and pass down unfit genes for generations? while very seemingly fit can suffer a spontaneous death?

Remember evo is about populations. Those characteristics that are fit will more likely be passed on and passed on at a greater speed than those unfit characteristics. Also if say a unfit characteristic does not occur until after it has reproduced then it couldnt have been that bad. Also as mentioned many times in the case of humans we have a tendency to take ourselves out of natural selection.

[جوري]

Remember evo is about populations.

So you keep saying, but haven't so far proven.. Did a population of Apes one day awake to being human?

Those characteristics that are fit will more likely be passed on and passed on at a greater speed than those unfit characteristics. .

Is that a fact or are you improvising as you go along? There is no greater "speed" in mutation, there is however a certain percentage that will be carrying and/or exhibiting a mutation. The exact same as when I'd say the prevalence of any of the known documented personality disorder affects 10-15% of any set population, that would mean 10-15% Nagasaki or 10-15% in Saskatchewan. But People of Nagasaki wouldn't be exhibiting say Cluster A schizotypal personality at a higher speed than the population of Saskatchewan.

Also if say a unfit characteristic does not occur until after it has reproduced then it couldnt have been that bad. Also as mentioned many times in the case of humans we have a tendency to take ourselves out of natural selection.

Lastly an unfit characteristic can be both present in a carrier state, a low Penetrance state, or full blown. Yes it can be reproduced, and yes can be very bad with each successive generation. I'll not go over that again, I have covered it in great detail here ad nauseum
.... Further why have we taken ourselves out of natural selection? Who passed that new legislative law? Until this theory becomes more polymerized I suggest you discard it... or we can accept it as a belief, but not as scientific data


peace!

[Pygoscelis]

There is no greater "speed" in mutation, there is however a certain percentage that will be carrying and/or exhibiting a mutation. The exact same as when I'd say the prevalence of any of the known documented personality disorder affects 10-15% of any set population, that would mean 10-15% Nagasaki or 10-15% in Saskatchewan. But People of Nagasaki wouldn't be exhibiting say Cluster A schizotypal personality at a higher speed than the population of Saskatchewan.

This is awfully cryptic.

Why would evolution predict that they would be? What survival advantage or disadvantage does such a disorder give? Does it render people infertile so they can not survive long enough to have offspring? Does it make them super promiscuous and fertile so they have 100 children each?

.... Further why have we taken ourselves out of natural selection? Who passed that new legislative law? Until this theory becomes more polymerized I suggest you discard it... or we can accept it as a belief, but not as scientific data

To a large extent we control our environment now. Modern medicine allows the weak and unfit to survive and breed. We do not have complete control so it wouldn't be correct to say that we have completely taken outselves out of natural selection, but we have definitely dampened its influence on our development dramatically.

[Pygoscelis]

That is very cryptic..I am not sure what you are trying to say as it relates to "There is no survival of the fittest without death"

It was the best I could do. Your reply did not appear in any way connected to what you were replying to. If my response was cryptic, that was only the effect of your own.

[جوري]

This is awfully cryptic.

lol awfully cryptic is how we described your post above... but I fail to see how mine is?

Why would evolution predict that they would be? ?

Why would evolution predict who what would be?

What survival advantage or disadvantage does such a disorder give?

which disorder are we talking about here?

Does it render people infertile so they can not survive long enough to have offspring?

Again, I ask--Which disorder are we talking about?

Does it make them super promiscuous and fertile so they have 100 children each?

Whatever you are on pass some my way... I have a bit of a headache, and I am not sure what to make of your post as relates to the topic at hand...


peace

[جوري]

It was the best I could do. Your reply did not appear in any way connected to what you were replying to. If my response was cryptic, that was only the effect of your own.

Oh? how so? you asked:

I find the question "Why did death evolve" rather ridiculous. Death is a integral and necesary part of evolution. There is no survival of the fittest without death.
!

To which we answered

ha? how then do you explain the unfit that survive and pass down unfit genes for generations? while very seemingly fit can suffer a spontaneous death?!

I think it is very clear... simply to denote, not all that is fit survives, nor all that is unfit dies to allow for this natural (integral necessary part of evolution)-- in other words a dent in your theorem ... I thought it was rather direct and very connected...

peace!

[Woodrow]

If I understand the theories of evolution, the attributes that are most useful for the survival of the species are the ones that survive.

In terms of evolutionary criteria, stability seems to be the desired result.

Inanimate objects are much more stable than animate objects.

The final product of evolution should be an independent, ageless object free from disease and deterioration.

With that concept a quartz crystal buried far below the surface of the earth is much further advanced than a Human.

My conclusion is that evolution would be a decline in the stability of natural forces rather than an advancement.

To move from a stable system to an erratic unstable system, seems to be very contradictory to the process of evolution.

Unless there is a force or ingredient that demanded the presence of life.

[Trumble]

Inanimate objects are much more stable than animate objects.

The final product of evolution should be an independent, ageless object free from disease and deterioration.

That rather depends on scale. 'Life', as a whole, has been around in some form or other for four billion years or so and shows no sign of stopping. Not bad for something "erratic and unstable". Would you not agree that in this context that is as close to 'ageless' as makes no difference?

[Pygoscelis]

Why would evolution predict who what would be?

You are speaking about evolution in the post i responded to, are you not?

which disorder are we talking about here?

How should I know? You are the one bringing it up and making a cryptic point with it, if a point at all?

[Pygoscelis]

To which we answered

Who is "we"?

I think it is very clear... simply to denote, not all that is fit survives, nor all that is unfit dies to allow for this natural (integral necessary part of evolution)-- in other words a dent in your theorem ... I thought it was rather direct and very connected...

Survival of the fittest isn't supposed to mean that all organisms with an advantage trait survive and all with a disadvantage trait don't. It simply means that more of the fit survive long enough to breed than do the unfit. It is a numbers game over the make up of the population. I thought you knew this, no?

[Pygoscelis]

The final product of evolution should be an independent, ageless object free from disease and deterioration.

The concept of a "final product of evolution" only makes sense given an environment that does not and will not change. In such an environment, the final product should be something best suited to live long enough to breed in that environment, but not breed so fast as to change that environment (ie, exhaust resources).

[جوري]

You are speaking about evolution in the post i responded to, are you not?

yes, yet I fear your response has nothing to do with evolution.

How should I know? You are the one bringing it up and making a cryptic point with it, if a point at all?

Why do you participate in a subject that is over your head, or where you don't understand the subject matter? You can always go back a few posts and re-read and recap... is it really worth it to take up web space for this none sense?

[جوري]

Who is "we"?

We would be me myself and I..

Survival of the fittest isn't supposed to mean that all organisms with an advantage trait survive and all with a disadvantage trait don't. It simply means that more of the fit survive long enough to breed than do the unfit. It is a numbers game over the make up of the population. I thought you knew this, no?

Are you inventing things off hand as you go along? we have already covered extendedly how many unfit, survive not only to pass unfit traits but unfit traits that get worst and worst with each generation. stop answering with a quip try providing some good support for your conclusion-- what sort of new fallacy is this? an appeal to novelty and invention?

peace

[ranma1/2]

If I understand the theories of evolution, the attributes that are most useful for the survival of the species are the ones that survive.

In terms of evolutionary criteria, stability seems to be the desired result.

Inanimate objects are much more stable than animate objects.

The final product of evolution should be an independent, ageless object free from disease and deterioration.

With that concept a quartz crystal buried far below the surface of the earth is much further advanced than a Human.

My conclusion is that evolution would be a decline in the stability of natural forces rather than an advancement.

To move from a stable system to an erratic unstable system, seems to be very contradictory to the process of evolution.

Unless there is a force or ingredient that demanded the presence of life.

Remember evo does not have goals so its not heading anywhere and there is nothing that is higher evolved than others. Remember the enviroment changes and those that dont change often die off or decline. Evolution does not work off of stability but change as the enviroment changes "in general"
If creatures did not die naturally and they still reproduced you would see overpopulation. If creatures do not die of natural causes and stop reproducing they will die out eventually due to unnatural causes.
I am a little unsure as to what you mean by stablility. To my knowledge nature itself is very unstable as are the enviroments.

[Pygoscelis]

Ok, shaving off all the colourful adhoms, I'm not left with much of your post to respond to. What is your point? Do you have one?

For some cryptic reason you objected to my stating death as an important factor in evolution theory. Evolution includes "survival of the fittest". Survival is the rate of getting dead to staying alive (in this case doing so long enough o breed).

So again, do you have a point? Or do you just like typing nonsense and confusing people?

we have already covered extendedly how many unfit, survive not only to pass unfit traits but unfit traits that get worst and worst with each generation.

If traits are getting passed along in high numbers they are obviously not so "unfit".

[جوري]

I am enjoying the fact that you like the term cryptic so much you have used it in three of your posts.. I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with the subject matter, then you won't be so confused, deeming it "nonsense"...

I don't think you have a clue what "high numbers" means as relates to the aforementioned cases, we have already written extensively on Trinucleotide repeats, rather than going over this again, I'd request you go ahead and read about the following mutations, Dentatorubral-pallidoluysian atrophy , fragile X syndrome, Haw river syndrome, Huntington's disease, Spinal and Bulbar muscular dystrophy, Spinocerebellar ataxia.. and then we can have this conversation on how ("they are obviously not so "unfit".]

It is becoming a matter of saving face with you, you've almost become a zealot over things that contradict (your religion evolution) --

peace!

[Pygoscelis]

I am enjoying the fact that you like the term cryptic so much

If a word fits, why not use it? You make no sense.

Again, you launched off on this tirade in response to my stating the obvious, that survival of the fittest involves the concept of death. You still have not made any coherent point, besides your adhoms.

I suspect that your constant trolling is going to get this thread closed, but perhaps that is your goal.

As for evolution being my "religion"? It may suprise you that I'm actually not a staunch supporter of the theory, certainly not to a "religious" degree. I think its the best theory people have managed to come up with so far. Its probably wrong, at least in part, and will be replaced when a better theory comes along with better evidence.

I was just commenting on the theory and that survival, and hence death is a necesary part of it, and you seemed to take that as a luanching point for this incoherency of yours.

[جوري]

It makes no sense and is incoherent to you simply because you are ill read. Seeing that you copy your comebacks from various posts, I suspect you don't have one well formed opinion of your own? I get PM's about the subjects in this thread all the time...
I have no interest in closing the thread, I expect that people read points presented them before engaging in a topic... Answering the first thing that comes to your mind, is hardly scientific...
You remind me of something I have witnessed once in a (place of gathering), a male gorilla pounding extra hard on its chest in show of prowess. Your replies are hyperbolic, which makes me lose interest....
Go ahead and entertain whomever is reading this with your endless endowment of wit....

peace!

[Woodrow]

That rather depends on scale. 'Life', as a whole, has been around in some form or other for four billion years or so and shows no sign of stopping. Not bad for something "erratic and unstable". Would you not agree that in this context that is as close to 'ageless' as makes no difference?

If the Universe existed on only one plane and all that exist is only that which we can see. I would agree with your answer.

I could go along and agree that if matter were an undirected cosmic happening without cause, that eventually motile, self reproducing organisms would develop. Those organisms would not be alive. However, at some point cosmic stagnation would occur and stability would be the ultimate end product of evolution.

However, I see life as something that extends beyond the measurable. I do not see where we have any apperatus that can measure life. There is no way to determine if a tiny krill is more or less alive than the many ton blue whale that eats it. They both have a quality that we can only call life.

We really do not fully comprhend what life is. We do have some concept as to when life ends. But, we do not have scientific proof as to why things die.

Life, exists because it is not an evolutionary product. Life occurs, because it was created to occur. This physical existance is simply the vehicle we have been blessed with to guide us in our fulfilment of life. Life can not evolve from nothing because this thing we call life is not a material, it is the Will of Allah(swt) Astagfirullah

[Pygoscelis]

Setting Ambrosia and his/her constant adhoms aside (that last post had literally nothing but adhoms in it)...

We really do not fully comprhend what life is. We do have some concept as to when life ends. But, we do not have scientific proof as to why things die.

I agree with this. It is difficult to even define what life is and how it functions, nevermind how it came to be.

Life, exists because it is not an evolutionary product. Life occurs, because it was created to occur. This physical existance is simply the vehicle we have been blessed with to guide us in our fulfilment of life. Life can not evolve from nothing because this thing we call life is not a material, it is the Will of Allah(swt) Astagfirullah

This is of course all your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I of course don't take this step.

The quote makes me curious though, is it your view that some sort of "life force" has always existed, perhaps in the hand of God, before it developed or was shaped by God into what we are today?

[Woodrow]

Setting Ambrosia and his/her constant adhoms aside (that last post had literally nothing but adhoms in it)...



I agree with this. It is difficult to even define what life is and how it functions, nevermind how it came to be.



This is of course all your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I of course don't take this step.

The quote makes me curious though, is it your view that some sort of "life force" has always existed, perhaps in the hand of God, before it developed or was shaped by God into what we are today?

Simply my round about way of saying I do not really know what life is. I know I experience it and I know I enjoy it, but I can not point to anything specific and call that life. No I do not believe it is an eternal thing I believe it was created By Allah(swt) at a specific moment. I can only speculate as to when that moment was. My own feeling is it was at some stage during my cellular formation.

I have no way to explain what it is, but I do know it came from Allah(swt)

[thirdwatch512]

QUESTION TO EVOLUTIONISTS - according to the laws of motion, matter can not be CREATED NOR DESTROYED.

so how on earth did Matter start??!!!!??

although i am Christian, I know that any theistic person can agree that life is just too complex to have been "coincidential"

like the anatomy of a body is sooo complex, and just soo amazing. i fail to understand how evolution can do that.

and certain animals have certain features that can protect them.. how did evolution make that!!

evolution is the WHACKEST junk ever!! lol

i can agree with some beliefs of evolution.. but others just seems outright ridiculous.

plus, remember.. Satan is a deciever. a liar. he tricks people.

[Pygoscelis]

QUESTION TO EVOLUTIONISTS - according to the laws of motion, matter can not be CREATED NOR DESTROYED.

so how on earth did Matter start??!!!!??

That isn't a question that Evolution theory attempts to answer.

Evolution doesn't deal with how life came to be, only how it changes form over time.

[Philosopher]

That isn't a question that Evolution theory attempts to answer.

Evolution doesn't deal with how life came to be, only how it changes form over time.

Then how come almost all atheists are evolutionists?

[Trumble]

QUESTION TO EVOLUTIONISTS - according to the laws of motion, matter can not be CREATED NOR DESTROYED.

I think you mean the 'laws' of conservation of matter and of energy, not the "laws of motion". Matter is actually both 'created' and 'destroyed' all the time, although the sum of both mass and energy is conserved.

so how on earth did Matter start??!!!!??

Where there is energy there is the potential for matter. So where did energy come from? The same place as God maybe?

like the anatomy of a body is sooo complex, and just soo amazing. i fail to understand how evolution can do that.

The theory, in it's modern form, is quite clear as to how it could "do that". The question is whether you believe that it did, or that something else did.

and certain animals have certain features that can protect them.. how did evolution make that!!

That's precisely the point. The animals which developed that feature (or already had it when the environment changed to make it more 'desirable' ) were those most likely to survive and breed, and hence that feature was perpetuated and became increasing common. In other words, the species evolved to include it.

[Pygoscelis]

Then how come almost all atheists are evolutionists?

Because they don't have a creation story drilled into their heads that they see as conflicting with evolution. They have no reason to reject evolution the way that creationists do, and the theory is science's current best guess at some questions about how species have appeared and disapeared over the ages.

[ranma1/2]

QUESTION TO EVOLUTIONISTS - according to the laws of conservation, matter can not be CREATED NOR DESTROYED
so how on earth did Matter start??!!!!??.
Thats not a concern of evolution. Heck thats not even a concern of abiogenisis. There are some theories that go into how matter can pop into existince but im not that familar with them. Now of course there are also some theories that suggest that the universe has always existed in one form or another. Imagine an infinite big bang and crunches.

although i am Christian, I know that any theistic person can agree that life is just too complex to have been "coincidential"
like the anatomy of a body is sooo complex, and just soo amazing. i fail to understand how evolution can do that.
I would recomend reading about how certian functions are believed to have evolved.

and certain animals have certain features that can protect them.. how did evolution make that!!
See above.

[ranma1/2]

Then how come almost all atheists are evolutionists?

And why are the majority of evolutionary scientist theists?

[Pygoscelis]

And why are the majority of evolutionary scientist theists?

Indeed. Atheism is pretty rare. Evolution belief is more common than nonbelief. It would seem to follow that the majority of evolutionists are theists, not atheists.

[Trumble]

And why are the majority of evolutionary scientist theists?

I've no idea if a majority are theists are not (agnostics is my guess) but certainly a great many are. The reason, of course, is simply that evolution and theism are perfectly compatible. Whoever/whatever is responsible for the 'great design', evolution is just a part of that design. If it was designed by God, that design must have been perfect by definition, hence there would simply be no need for later 'tinkering' regarding the famous flagellum and such, or the creation of man. Things would just take of themself.

[Quruxbadaan]

Yes that sounds really stupid, probably why your ignorance has led you to not even understand what evolution represents and what it does not......

Think about it next time b4 u rush in again and spout your nonsense.......

Im sorry you make it sound as though the theory of evolution is rocket science to understand. perhaps for you it is... in anycase we all know that discoveries like these are alwayse something people should take with a grain of salt and that there are also many scientist who themselves are skeptical about the theory of evolution

this whole fish discovery sounds way too far fetched for me to swallow because unlike you a few fancy words dont daze me

peace

[Quruxbadaan]

OMG, such remarkable display of ignorance.

Root i really dont like the cut of your jibb

[root]

Im sorry you make it sound as though the theory of evolution is rocket science to understand. perhaps for you it is... in anycase we all know that discoveries like these are alwayse something people should take with a grain of salt and that there are also many scientist who themselves are skeptical about the theory of evolution

this whole fish discovery sounds way too far fetched for me to swallow because unlike you a few fancy words dont daze me

peace

Source then please........

[ranma1/2]

.......and that there are also many scientist who themselves are skeptical about the theory of evolution

.....

peace

And there are many more scientists by the name of steve that are in the related feilds that accept the theory and have no problem with it.
AND They accept this statement.

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp

[rania2820]

So what you are the types of people that believe a rock blew up all of a sudden world came and some how humans are the only smart one. Man can you even see how stupid that sounds. Besides fossils can be misleading at times.. Also if you were to reject God then answer this howcome Prophet Muhammed S.A.W knew what will happen in the future. Howcome An illiterate person can tell us the world is round and all the science that sciencetist have just found out ?

agreed.the notion that we were all created from a ball of gas then exploded and thus the universe.is just stupid. and why are humans the smartest species? because God made us that way.

and my question is where did this ball gas come from anyway? did someone fart it out?

[islamirama]

agreed.the notion that we were all created from a ball of gas then exploded and thus the universe.is just stupid. and why are humans the smartest species? because God made us that way.

and my question is where did this ball gas come from anyway? did someone fart it out?

Humans smartest species? i beg to differ...(jinns?)

I once asked my astronomy professor the same question, like where did this ball of gas come from to begin with, and WHAT is it expanding IN to? Even nothingness is something that is being filled. He said that behind closed doors (off the record), most scientists agree that there is a Higher force behind all this.

And we already know the universe origin

[rania2820]

Humans smartest species? i beg to differ...(jinns?)

well since jinns are from the unseen I'm excluding them.im talking about the species we can see

[ranma1/2]

Humans smartest species? i beg to differ...(jinns?)

I once asked my astronomy professor the same question, like where did this ball of gas come from to begin with, and WHAT is it expanding IN to? Even nothingness is something that is being filled. He said that behind closed doors (off the record), most scientists agree that there is a Higher force behind all this.

And we already know the universe origin

Jinn are myths, like the unicorn and angels, they are not species in the realm of science till you have evidence.

And on the record no scientists to my knowledge believes that a higher force is supported by science.

[Philosopher]

Jinn are myths, like the unicorn and angels, they are not species in the realm of science till you have evidence.

And on the record no scientists to my knowledge believes that a higher force is supported by science.

The only myth known to man is evolution.

[barney]

Humans smartest species? i beg to differ...(jinns?)

Well, they are supposed to have substance, they are made out of Fire and water. Their level of intelligence is debatable though.

[barney]

The only myth known to man is evolution.

Oh noes! Theres loads of myths. Robin Hood...king Arthur...The Grassy Knoll in '63, Giant Spiders killing American Special Forces in Kandahar. Thousands of Myths about really......

[Philosopher]

Oh noes! Theres loads of myths. Robin Hood...king Arthur...The Grassy Knoll in '63, Giant Spiders killing American Special Forces in Kandahar. Thousands of Myths about really......

LOL @ evolution.

[Pygoscelis]

agreed.the notion that we were all created from a ball of gas then exploded and thus the universe.is just stupid. and why are humans the smartest species? because God made us that way.

and my question is where did this ball gas come from anyway? did someone fart it out?

Your claim is just as fantastic as the theory of evolution though. You accept your God-did-it fantastic claim, perhaps even on faith, while denying the very possibility of evolution and the big bang, even though its the best guess scientists currently have.

I suggest to you that both could be wrong.

I suggest to you that we don't actually know if either is right or if both are wrong. There ae thousands of other possibilities.

[islamirama]

Well, they are supposed to have substance, they are made out of Fire and water. Their level of intelligence is debatable though.

Jinns are made out of smokeless fire only. we are made out of clay and water, so we're just mud and water, shouldn't our "intelligence" be debtable as well?

Jinns have substances, unlike us, they have more capabilities like we have more compared to other species we know of.

Jinn are myths, like the unicorn and angels, they are not species in the realm of science till you have evidence.

And on the record no scientists to my knowledge believes that a higher force is supported by science.

unicorns, magical springs in china, and other things are myths. Jinns, angels, devil, and God are faith based. There's more to science than mere limited knowledge of us humans. By logic of science we can say you don't have a brain becuase we can't hear, touch, feel, see or do other "scientific" observations.

Science is limited, today we know of other planets, we know of a whole new world of micro-organisms, 100yrs ago we didn't know such things even existed. Today we can go in space, and at one time we believed flying is only for birds. Tomorrow we may discover more that today we are ignorant of and deny. To judge something by a method (science) that we developed by our limited capacity will only fool us from those things we have yet learned to help us understand. Who knows, tomorow we may discover a way to see into other dimensions and a whole new world of species. Don't limit your understanding and beliefs by the limitation of science.

a scientist is not foold to go on record and say something against his career. I don't care about records, i'm saying what i've heard from the horses mouth.

[ranma1/2]

unicorns, magical springs in china, and other things are myths. Jinns, angels, devil, and God are faith based.
Ok lets say they are religous based myths. Other myths include lockness, chubakubras etc.. and those have slightly more evidence for them.

There's more to science than mere limited knowledge of us humans. By logic of science we can say you don't have a brain becuase we can't hear, touch, feel, see or do other "scientific" observations.
Ill take the You comment as a generalization for everyone. No by science we have many reasons to suppose people have brains. Biological for one. We also know that we can take pictures of our brains with technology as well. We have evidence. Now maybe a long time ago we may have not known what the brain was but today we do.

Science is limited,
As opposed to what? Its limited by what we know and it strives to decrease that.

To judge something by a method (science) that we developed by our limited capacity will only fool us from those things we have yet learned to help us understand.
Thats why science contiues to strive to learn. Thats why we use evidence in science.

Don't limit your understanding and beliefs by the limitation of science.
Most people dont, thanks to science we can explain what we couldnt a hundred years ago. Now we know what causes natural disasters, floods, earthquakes , etc.. And no spirits are responcible.

[جوري]

Your claim is just as fantastic as the theory of evolution though. You accept your God-did-it fantastic claim, perhaps even on faith, while denying the very possibility of evolution and the big bang, even though its the best guess scientists currently have.

.

Religion-- at least Islam doesn't deny the big bang theory in fact many verses hint at it.. further there is nothing (about or against) evolution mentioned (save that of man)... Evolution fails on its own accord from a scientific stand point.. it is a belief as G-D is to religionists.
Peace!

[islamirama]

There's more to science than mere limited knowledge of us humans. By logic of science we can say you don't have a brain becuase we can't hear, touch, feel, see or do other "scientific" observations.
Ill take the You comment as a generalization for everyone. No by science we have many reasons to suppose people have brains. Biological for one. We also know that we can take pictures of our brains with technology as well. We have evidence. Now maybe a long time ago we may have not known what the brain was but today we do.

Science is limited,
As opposed to what? Its limited by what we know and it strives to decrease that.

To judge something by a method (science) that we developed by our limited capacity will only fool us from those things we have yet learned to help us understand.
Thats why science contiues to strive to learn. Thats why we use evidence in science.

Don't limit your understanding and beliefs by the limitation of science.
Most people dont, thanks to science we can explain what we couldnt a hundred years ago. Now we know what causes natural disasters, floods, earthquakes , etc.. And no spirits are responcible.

Good thing is that you believe that we are limited in our understanding as is our science of finding the truth. What we know now is very vast compared to what we knew before, but what we now is nothing compared to what we may know 100yrs from today. Dinosaurs are a reality today where as they were a myth before, angels and jinns are myth today for you but maybe not for others in the future. Our science is only limited to our intelligence, the more we advance the better our scien will be. So I advise you to keep an open mind and don't dismiss these beliefs so easily. Scientists don't believe in magic either but it still exists.

[Woodrow]

One area I see where science is misunderstood and misused. Science is not a belief system. It is a system of measurements and quantifications.

Science neither proves or disproves all aspects of Creation. It is merely the study of that which can be measured. I can prove with a measuring stick that a Dollar bill is 6.125 inches long. But, I can not prove the Loch Ness Nonster is 30 meters long. The fact I can not measure the Loch Ness Monster is not proof that it does not exist.

[جوري]

One area I see where science is misunderstood and misused. Science is not a belief system. It is a system of measurements and quantifications.

Science neither proves or disproves all aspects of Creation. It is merely the study of that which can be measured. I can prove with a measuring stick that a Dollar bill is 6.125 inches long. But, I can not prove the Loch Ness Nonster is 30 meters long. The fact I can not measure the Loch Ness Monster is not proof that it does not exist.

I couldn't imagine saying it better... I am not sure why there needs to be branching into elements in the realm of the unknown-- to make a claim for evolution? This has been a dreadfully long topic!..
:w:

[Gator]

Agreed, as has been said ad nauseum, science in not good a answering philosophical questions.

I guess the only reason it is used is if there are certain propositions put forward, such as YEC, that doesn't fit with scientific consensus. I'm sure if someone digs up Noah's Ark, the YECers would be all over it.

[Woodrow]

this thread has run to the end of it's value.