Scientists Agree "Evidence-based" facts.

[root]

The world's top scientists have joined together in A statement signed by 67 national science academies says evidence on the origins of life is being "concealed, denied, or confused". Science cannot offer absolute proof, however the scientists have released 4 key points that it considers "key facts" that "scientific evidence has never contradicted".

Fact 1

In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

Fact 2

Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

Fact 3

Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

Fact 4

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate
their common primordial origin.

We also subscribe to the following statement regarding the nature of science in relation to the teaching of evolution and, more generally, of any field of scientific knowledge : Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been successful and of great consequence. Science focuses on (i) observing the natural world and
(ii) formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena. When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure or process of still
unobserved phenomena. Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations. While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.

A copy of the full statement is here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h..._evolution.pdf

[Abdul Fattah]

So what's your take on this? Do you think these "facts" are conclusives? We seem to have already discussed most of these things without conclusive ersult, hav'nt we?

[cihad]

the sun WILL rise from the west- how about that for proof.

google if you want more info

[root]

Steve

I really don't have a problem with it. We may debate various issues and I am quite sure the Quran has a form of "specialists" who are viewed as the authorative on the subject matter.

I am happy that all top scientific institutions have clarified that the 4 key points have never been contradicted by any scientific discovery, further all the scientific data support these key 4 points. We may engage in discussion's on DNA but are we geneticists at the cutting edge of science? Do we hold PHd's and woek every single day in evolutionary biology? are we top phisicists? apparently not. This does not mean we can't debate general opinion, but it's great to know from a scientific point of view where the common majority of scientific opinion is. Someone can tell me that Evolution is a fake and a con and all that they try, however we now know the overwhelming scientific consensus does not support a creationist none scientific debate.

I agree very much with what they said including:

evidence on the origins of life is being "concealed, denied, or confused".

You only have to look at the way yourself and all creationist confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis........

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

[iLL_LeaT]

So root, what do you think schools should do?

Obviously these scientists think public schools are hiding and denying evidence biased theories about the origins of the earth.

I personally think everyone needs to be educated on the theory of evolution. However, I also think that people need to “acknowledging current limitations,” and know that “science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.”

Moreover, I think that comparative religion courses should be required. People need to be well educated in every end of the spectrum.

The problem with how the human mind works is that it is very binary. The mind seems to see things as one way or the other. When a Christian (or what ever) is educated on “evidence based” theories, there personal reality crashes down. And then they tend to think if their current belief is wrong, then it must be the complete opposite (well that is what happened to me in high school anyway). So educating people on sciences current limitations should be made very clear because science is not grounds to be disillusioned, it just show that the bible itself is wrong. The bible being wrong, however, would also be taught in most comparative religion courses too. The bible being changed is shown quite clearly though history. In fact most Christians would agree that the bible is wrong, but I am starting ramble so I’m going to stop.

[Abdul Fattah]

I am happy that all top scientific institutions have clarified that the 4 key points have never been contradicted by any scientific discovery, further all the scientific data support these key 4 points. We may engage in discussion's on DNA but are we geneticists at the cutting edge of science? Do we hold PHd's and woek every single day in evolutionary biology? are we top phisicists? apparently not.

All very true, but the thing is, these "key-facts" have almost nothing to do with evolution itself. They can fit in, in either point of view. So what does it tell you about the experts when they reach a conlusion based on that?

iLL_LeaT,
Nice p.o.v.
I agree 100%

[Muhammad Waqqas]

In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

Agree.

Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

This has nothing to do with Evolution.

Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.

The sentence "Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. " is a lie, to say at least. There are enough facts to prove that life existed about 4 Billion years ago. Here is just one (out of a hundred may be) link, quite authentic, since you people really trust CNN very much, so this link will tell you about the fossils found which are 4 billion yeasr ago. The species that existed 4 Billion years ago are exactly identical to the ones we have today.

Source:
Don Knapp, "New sighting of 'living fossil' intrigues scientists," CNN.com, 23 September 1998
http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/science/...sil/index.html

I did not take the headache of reading the rest of the nonsense to save my time, for this reson is way more than enough to prove all of your allegations wrong.

Assalam o Alikum.

[root]

Muhammad Waqqas - This has nothing to do with Evolution.

Agreed, these are key facts in reference to "natural History"!

Muhammad Waqqas - The sentence "Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. " is a lie, to say at least. There are enough facts to prove that life existed about 4 Billion years ago. Here is just one (out of a hundred may be) link, quite authentic, since you people really trust CNN very much, so this link will tell you about the fossils found which are 4 billion yeasr ago. The species that existed 4 Billion years ago are exactly identical to the ones we have today.

Source:
Don Knapp, "New sighting of 'living fossil' intrigues scientists," CNN.com, 23 September 1998
http://edition.cnn.com/TECH/science/...sil/index.html

Your source dated the fossil as 400 MYA not 4 Billion! (DOH!)

I did not take the headache of reading the rest of the nonsense to save my time, for this reson is way more than enough to prove all of your allegations wrong.

That's a shame, your post may not have been so innacurate had you read it fully.

Steve - All very true, but the thing is, these "key-facts" have almost nothing to do with evolution itself. They can fit in, in either point of view. So what does it tell you about the experts when they reach a conlusion based on that?

These key facts reference natural history and not the Theory of Evolution parsai!

iLL_LeaT - The problem with how the human mind works is that it is very binary. The mind seems to see things as one way or the other. When a Christian (or what ever) is educated on “evidence based” theories, there personal reality crashes down. And then they tend to think if their current belief is wrong, then it must be the complete opposite (well that is what happened to me in high school anyway). So educating people on sciences current limitations should be made very clear because science is not grounds to be disillusioned, it just show that the bible itself is wrong. The bible being wrong, however, would also be taught in most comparative religion courses too. The bible being changed is shown quite clearly though history. In fact most Christians would agree that the bible is wrong, but I am starting ramble so I’m going to stop.

I agree, here is what they say about that in the document;

Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations. While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.

[Muhammad Waqqas]

Agreed, these are key facts in reference to "natural History"!



Your source dated the fossil as 400 MYA not 4 Billion! (DOH!)

That's a counter shame, your post may not have been so stupid if you had really analyzed what the source meant.

1: The oldest fossile found on th face of the earth is round about 400 Million years old. And that oldest fossile is exactly identical to what we have today. That means, atleast since 400 Million years ago, there has been "NO EVOLUTION AT ALL."

To say that it "MIGHT" have happend on other type of species is nonsense, since the fossile record has cleard the problem.

[Abdul Fattah]

These key facts reference natural history and not the Theory of Evolution parsai!

Oh sorry I jumped to conclusions. I thought they did this to indicate that evolution is all accurate. Sorry. Guess they 're just getting there facts straight, in which case I can only aplaude. :)

[root]

Muhammad Waqqas - That's a counter shame, your post may not have been so stupid if you had really analyzed what the source meant.

Fact two:

Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.

The planet has and continues to "Evolve", your confusing this with the "theory of Evolution" which describes how "life" has evolved over time & excludes how life began!

Muhammad Waqqas1: The oldest fossile found on th face of the earth is round about 400 Million years old.

Blatant Inaccuracy #1 Please provide a source for that ridiculous claim.....

And that oldest fossile is exactly identical to what we have today.

Blatant Inaccuracy #2

Muhammad Waqqas- That means, atleast since 400 Million years ago, there has been "NO EVOLUTION AT ALL."

Blatant Inaccuracy #3

Any time a creationist tries to tell you that “living fossils” disprove evolution, you know that he or she a) doesn’t understand the theory of evolution at all, and b) hasn’t honestly looked at the evidence they think they are presenting. They might as well get the word “Idiot” tattooed into their forehead; as a signifier of their intellectual prowess, it would be just as accurate. They all make several gross errors.

"Unchanging forms” refute evolution. Not quite true. A species that exhibited no variation at all, and that showed no change over time, not even neutral molecular differences, would be a major puzzler for biology. No such thing has ever been observed. On the other hand, gross structural stasis over a long period of time is no problem for evolution. One thing even many biology students have some difficulty grasping is that selection is a conservative force; it tends to limit variation to the narrower domain of the viable and the competitive.

Coelacanths are unchanging forms that show no evidence of evolution. Read the quotes above: the creationists can’t even get their stories straight. They repeatedly claim that the coelacanth is “stable” and “unchanging”, but then they turn around and point out huge differences between what we know of coelacanths in the fossil record and modern forms: they live in different environments with remarkably different physiology. Which is it? Are they unchanging or are they radically changed?

The answer is that modern coelacanths are specialized remnants of a once diverse and widespread group. They have changed extensively over hundreds of millions of years, as would be expected, and this once widely successful and branched family has been pruned back to just a few twigs lurking in relatively inaccessible locations. Here, for instance, are a few fossil examples of ancient coelacanth diversity (Clack, 2002):

Source:http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/c...nth_evolution/

Lets all play spot the difference with this "UNCHANGED" example of CREATIONISM

[Muhammad Waqqas]

I sometimes feel really ashmed for debating with Atheists, but since its my job, so I have to.

Blatant Inaccuracy #1 Please provide a source for that ridiculous claim.....

I guess the verse "The Deaf, the dum, the blind, they'll never come to the streight path.." (2:18) was revealed for these satanic athiests.

The link, if the eyes are in a working condition, would explain that stupid question that you just asked.

The source you have quoted above.. is "BULL****." You know why? Becuase I donot believe in anyone's PERSONAL opinion about anything.

The statement:

Any time a creationist tries to tell you that “living fossils” disprove evolution, you know that he or she a) doesn’t understand the theory of evolution at all, and b) hasn’t honestly looked at the evidence they think they are presenting.

..is absolutly rediculous, for this is another thing which I cannot understand, that Why dose every athiest bring about his OWN THEORY OF EVOLUTION?!?!? Here is a suggestion: Make a confrence of Athiests, and discuss and agree upon ONE Theory of Evolution so that we may not feel really stupid while talking to Athiests.

"Unchanging forms” refute evolution. Not quite true. A species that exhibited no variation at all, and that showed no change over time, not even neutral molecular differences, would be a major puzzler for biology. No such thing has ever been observed.

Saying that "No such thing has ever been ovserved" is quite self contradictory.

Saying or finding out phrases that people should have a tattoo on their face saying idiot or stupid proves nothing. Rather it proves the stupidity of the writer for going off-topic.

What the hell is this? A drawing compition? Sorry, we are not here to play, we are here to discuss "FACTS," Common grow up? Who's going to belive that crap? I gave you a link to CNN, I can give you 10 more. Which shows how things have "NO" evolved for 400 Million years.

Saying this that a specie remained absolutly identical for 400 Million years "IS" actually against evolution. One of them might have resisted its shape for 100 years, 200, 500, 1000, 10,000.. may be 500,000.. but it cannot remain same if the law of evolution is true for 400 Million years.

The world's top scientists have joined together in A statement signed by 67 national science academies says evidence on the origins of life is being "concealed, denied, or confused".

WHICH WORL'S top scientists? I cannot even spot out a single scientist who believes in evolution today. They aren't as crazy as athiests. As a proof, you can check out "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol 294, November 12, 1981, page 105: Where the Athiest Nobel Prize winner, Fred Hoyle, spekaing about the orignation of the "FIRST CELL" says that such a scenario "is compareable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Now, as I was saying, that the Athiests keep on changing their statements about their belief time to time. The first thing, which your ancestor Mr immanuel Kant proposed of the universe being without any end or begining was one of the basic pillars of Athiesm, he was terrably wrong. The proof came as "The Big Bang Theory" which proved that even the universe had a begining. Your another forefather, Mr. John Maddox prophecised that this thory was not going to last when the science advances (John Maddox, "Down with the bigbang", Nature, vol 340, 1989, Page 378) His prophecy utterly failed.

Today, since its absolutly clear that the big bang has really happend, so the modren athiests today write stuff like:

In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.

We all know universe has not evolved, it has actually been created.

And that is agreed upon by the English Materialist Physicist, H.P. Lipson, unwillingly ofcourse: "I think... that we must... admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed its to me, but we must not reject that we donot like if experimental evidences supports it." (H.P. Lipson, "A physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulleti, vol. 138, 1980, page. 138)

As far as your reports from BBC is concerned, its only another illusion, which your Athiestic Reporters report on that channel. Don't count it to be my opinion, because they have already posted such lies which can make any peron in his right mind laugh. As far as Islam is concerned, they are doing everything they can to let the peole think as bad as they can about Islam. Regarding what you've posted, no reson, no logic to believe what you have posted, since there is no proof of evolution at all. Therefore thinking of a place where people gather up and say "Hey! Evolution is proved" sounds dangerously idiotic.

[Muhammad Waqqas]

The world's top scientists have joined together in A statement signed by 67 national science academies says evidence on the brain of athiests "idiotic, stupid and crazy". Science cannot offer these obsolute people to join in, however the scientists have released 4 key points that it considers "key facts" that "scientific evidence has never contradicted".

Fact 1

They are crazy. They don't even want to take a chance of preparing anything for the hereafter, just in case it really existed.

Fact 2

They believe in theories and ideas which have been burried under the ground for a hundred years now, just to continue believing that there is no God and prepare well to burn in the hell for eternity.
Fact 3

Athiests keep on changing their theories and keep on shouting in others ears, but since nobody hears them, there fore they go in other's religious forums to blurr our their feeling of "insecurity" to others.
Fact 4

There is no one as stupid as an athiest. (Please don't count your self in this, I am talking about the genral public)



A copy of the full statement is here:
http://www.harunyahya.com



Now, tell me, brother root, are you really going to accept everything I wrote? NO! Of course you won't. Which scientists? Who are they? We want proof! Documented proof, not that which your materialist BBC telecasted, they have already telecasted enough lies which are sufficent to accept any of their programe as a lie.

[root]

All Quotes by: Muhammad Waqqas

The world's top scientists have joined together in A statement signed by 67 national science academies says evidence on the brain of athiests "idiotic, stupid and crazy". Science cannot offer these obsolute people to join in, however the scientists have released 4 key points that it considers "key facts" that "scientific evidence has never contradicted".

Fact 1

They are crazy. They don't even want to take a chance of preparing anything for the hereafter, just in case it really existed.

Fact 2

They believe in theories and ideas which have been burried under the ground for a hundred years now, just to continue believing that there is no God and prepare well to burn in the hell for eternity.
Fact 3

Athiests keep on changing their theories and keep on shouting in others ears, but since nobody hears them, there fore they go in other's religious forums to blurr our their feeling of "insecurity" to others.
Fact 4

There is no one as stupid as an athiest. (Please don't count your self in this, I am talking about the genral public)

A copy of the full statement is here:
http://www.harunyahya.com

Sorry, I could not locate the article as you have qouted, could give me the presice URL you are referencing. Or did you mean the following site which also shares similar views to the link you provided although they have included a picture of "Him" our "Intelligent Designer" that is.........
http://www.venganza.org/

Now, tell me, brother root, are you really going to accept everything I wrote? NO! Of course you won't. Which scientists? Who are they? We want proof! Documented proof, not that which your materialist BBC telecasted, they have already telecasted enough lies which are sufficent to accept any of their programe as a lie.

The 4 Key points given on this thread were from the worlds top scientific community and represented by the scientific acadamies who are members of the IAP. IAP is a global network of the world's science academies, launched in 1993. Its primary goal is to help member academies work together to advise citizens and public officials on the scientific aspects of critical global issues. IAP is particularly interested in assisting young and small academies achieve these goals and, through the communication links and networks created by IAP activities, all academies will be able to raise both their public profile among citizens and their influence among policy makers.
http://www.interacademies.net/

The signatories of the 4 Key points are listed below:

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian Academy of Science
4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
27. Royal Irish Academy
28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science Council of Japan
31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
45. National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines
46. Polish Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas yNaturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
68. The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU)

I guess the verse "The Deaf, the dum, the blind, they'll never come to the streight path.." (2:18) was revealed for these satanic athiests.The link, if the eyes are in a working condition, would explain that stupid question that you just asked. The source you have quoted above.. is "BULL****." You know why? Becuase I donot believe in anyone's PERSONAL opinion about anything.

The source is representative of science and by a professor of Biology.

Saying that "No such thing has ever been ovserved" is quite self contradictory.

If it's never been observed then it's never been observed. Which part of that statement are you having problems with....

Saying or finding out phrases that people should have a tattoo on their face saying idiot or stupid proves nothing. Rather it proves the stupidity of the writer for going off-topic.

Agreed, I only was indirectly offending you because you classed me as stupid.

..is absolutly rediculous, for this is another thing which I cannot understand, that Why dose every athiest bring about his OWN THEORY OF EVOLUTION?!?!? Here is a suggestion: Make a confrence of Athiests, and discuss and agree upon ONE Theory of Evolution so that we may not feel really stupid while talking to Athiests.

The "theory of Evolution" is a scientific theory, not an atheistic one. Many religous people have no problem with it at all including Muslims.

What the hell is this? A drawing compition? Sorry,

It's an accurate representation of the fossil record.

we are not here to play, we are here to discuss "FACTS,"

I agree, it's about time you gave us some instead of ranting nonsense

Common grow up? Who's going to belive that crap? I gave you a link to CNN, I can give you 10 more. Which shows how things have "NO" evolved for 400 Million years.

No you did not. You gave a link that showed a living ancestor that appears to have not changed in over 400 Million Years. To ehich the response is:

"Unchanging forms” refute evolution. Not quite true. A species that exhibited no variation at all, and that showed no change over time, not even neutral molecular differences, would be a major puzzler for biology. No such thing has ever been observed. On the other hand, gross structural stasis over a long period of time is no problem for evolution. One thing even many biology students have some difficulty grasping is that selection is a conservative force; it tends to limit variation to the narrower domain of the viable and the competitive.

WHICH WORL'S top scientists? I cannot even spot out a single scientist who believes in evolution today. They aren't as crazy as athiests. As a proof, you can check out "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol 294, November 12, 1981, page 105: Where the Athiest Nobel Prize winner, Fred Hoyle, spekaing about the orignation of the "FIRST CELL" says that such a scenario "is compareable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."

Your lack of understanding to what is and what is not part of the theory of evolution demonstrates how deluded you are. The theory of evolution only seeks to subscribe how life has evolved over time. It does not speculate how the very first cells came to be that is the theory of abiogenesis or the theory of pamspermia & currently a great scientific mystery........

We all know universe has not evolved, it has actually been created.

Perhaps you should contact all the 68 scientific acadamies given and correct them. (Good luck) :giggling:

And that is agreed upon by the English Materialist Physicist, H.P. Lipson, unwillingly ofcourse: "I think... that we must... admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed its to me, but we must not reject that we donot like if experimental evidences supports it." (H.P. Lipson, "A physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulleti, vol. 138, 1980, page. 138)

Can you tell me what is a Materialist Physicist did you also know that the source is now 26 years old. Had they even learned to read a genome back then!!!!

Now, as I was saying, that the Athiests keep on changing their statements about their belief time to time. The first thing, which your ancestor Mr immanuel Kant proposed of the universe being without any end or begining was one of the basic pillars of Athiesm, he was terrably wrong. The proof came as "The Big Bang Theory" which proved that even the universe had a begining. Your another forefather, Mr. John Maddox prophecised that this thory was not going to last when the science advances (John Maddox, "Down with the bigbang", Nature, vol 340, 1989, Page 378) His prophecy utterly failed.

You really believe that sh** don't you. Has the penny not dropped yet that science does not offer absolute proof. Recent evidence points to the possibility that actually the big bang whist being the start of our known universe is not actually the start for universes parsai. All that science can say about the big bang is that a very large explosion gave birth to our universe, and even that might not be true. Again your source is from 1989, this is why the point was made in the document:

Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations. While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.

As far as your reports from BBC is concerned, its only another illusion, which your Athiestic Reporters report on that channel. Don't count it to be my opinion, because they have already posted such lies which can make any peron in his right mind laugh. As far as Islam is concerned, they are doing everything they can to let the peole think as bad as they can about Islam. Regarding what you've posted, no reson, no logic to believe what you have posted, since there is no proof of evolution at all. Therefore thinking of a place where people gather up and say "Hey! Evolution is proved" sounds dangerously idiotic.

Oh, right the BBC are illusionists and CNN is the most reliable source as you indicate. OK, only if you say so..............:hiding:

[wilberhum]

Root isn’t if frustrating having a battle of wit with unarmed opponents.

[Abdul Fattah]

selam aleykum
Muhammad Waqqas
Although I share your belief I do not agree with all of your arguments. I believe in creationism to, but a lot of the arguments raised by Harun yahya on this field are inacurate out-dated or badly worked out. I have already discussed mny of the issues here with Root in detail. The matter is so complex that the discussion just goes on endlesly untill either one gets bored only to pick up where we left of several months later. I doubt your name calling and insulting will do any good here.

[wilberhum]

selam aleykum
a lot of the arguments raised by Harun yahya on this field are inacurate out-dated or badly worked out.

It is good to see that some do not fall into his trap. Many think that because he uses some quotes from the Quran, he is totally honest and accurate. His “Invitation to Truth” is anything but.

[Abdul Fattah]

Yep, and the sad part about it is that those who see the flaws in his work tend to jump to the conclusion that therefor creationism is flawed. In which case teh reaction is as flawed as the base for it.
On another note, his work about the miracles of the Qur'an is scientificly accurate.

[Trumble]

1: The oldest fossile found on th face of the earth is round about 400 Million years old. And that oldest fossile is exactly identical to what we have today. That means, atleast since 400 Million years ago, there has been "NO EVOLUTION AT ALL."

I have seen nothing about a "living fossil" 400 million years old.. the article states that the (evolutionary) ANCESTORS of the coelacanth can be traced that far back. The species itself is nothing like that old.

That aside, it is not even necessary to "attack" your comments on scientific grounds, although root has done so quite successfully. Simple logic will suffice. Assume, for sake of argument, there was a "living fossil" that old. Or ten. Or a thousand... doesn't matter. There is no logical route from that to the conclusion that NO current species (and there are billions) is the product of evolution occuring between then and now. None whatsoever. Its just like saying "that car is red, so ALL cars must be red".

Scientific arguments can always be debated on the basis of the evidence. Logical ones, however, are not matters of opinion. A logical argument is valid or it is not. Yours is logical nonsense.

[wilberhum]

Yep, and the sad part about it is that those who see the flaws in his work tend to jump to the conclusion that therefor creationism is flawed. In which case teh reaction is as flawed as the base for it.
On another note, his work about the miracles of the Qur'an is scientificly accurate.

Please provide a link to Scientificly Accurate article. Harun Yahya teaches “Pseudo Science” and caries no respect in the scientific community.

[czgibson]

Greetings Muhammad Waqqas,

I sometimes feel really ashmed for debating with Atheists, but since its my job, so I have to.

May I start by saying that of all the attacks on atheists that I've read on this forum, yours are by far the most entertaining! You've had me in stitches with some of your priceless gems of wisdom. "Satanic atheists", for example, is the best oxymoron I've heard in years!

The first thing, which your ancestor Mr immanuel Kant proposed of the universe being without any end or begining was one of the basic pillars of Athiesm, he was terrably wrong.

Of course, Mr. Kant. Why bother reading any of his books when you can just take a quote out of context and utterly misrepresent the author's views? Pure genius. Never mind the fact that Kant believed in god until his dying day, and that he never actually proposed the idea of the universe having no end and no beginning as being true - apart from that, your interpretation is entirely accurate!

MW, please keep up your posts. You must have a store of ingenious arguments waiting to burst out, and we atheists like nothing better than a robust opponent in debate!

Peace