Allah and Camouflage...(Atheists!!,Agnostics!! and seculars!!)

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim

nature cant function without a controller...

evidence? and what do you mean by function and controller?
Last i checked nature works quite nicely without any guide. Or did you mean the IPU? well we all know IPU is actually behind the lines controlling everything.

format_quote Originally Posted by guyabano

You ask me this question knowing well, I cannot answer it to you. I'm not an expert in this domain. Anyway, whatever I will show you up, you would not believe it and dig deeper and deeper till I would give up.

I am only seeking Solid evidence for your claim that the creature we are discussing did in fact evolve

Because its really hard for Atheists, Muslims and let's say Human beings to accept things without EMPIRICAL PROOF, especially in this age and time of Science

format_quote Originally Posted by Nerd

I think we have all side-tracked from the topic, let me restate the questions..

1- Did this insect look at the mirror when it was born?

2-Does it know what the word camouflage means?

3-Even if it knows, could it draw a shape of leaf on its back a full detailed leaf even with ribs and dry spots?

I think the questions quoted above have been ignored as they are irrelevant to the issue Makky raised before presenting them, but the answers are, of course, 'no', 'no' and 'no'. But neither evolution or creationism, or anything in between, requires them to be 'yes'.

Its either God or Nature which made this fantastic creature... if it is indeed evolution: would someone care to give exact details as from which insect this creature evolved from? even better if someone would be kind enough to trail it back to the first insect or cell from which it evolved and give a detailed description of the steps involved

Nobody knows the 'exact details', as every evolutionary scientist will happily admit. Unfortunately fossil evidence, by its very nature, is not available regarding every one of millions of species that evolved into millions of other species, and even if it was it would take centuries of time and effort to piece it all together. The thing is, though, that doesn't weaken the case for evolution in the slightest. The basic mechanism is understood (or at least we have a strong theory that fits the vast amount of evidence that is available, with no plausible scientific alternatives at present) and filling in the gaps (especially with God - which is what ID does) is not required.

You say that "its either God or Nature which made this fantastic creature". Why are you so quick to assume them to be mutually exclusive.. if there is a God surely He would be responsible for 'nature'? What would you consider wrong with this argument, for example:

(assumed for sake of argument); God created the universe.

(ditto); God was responsible for the first spark of life.

God designed the mechanism of evolution. Being omniscient and omnipotent he designed that mechanism to produce exactly what he wanted produced when he wanted it. From that first microbobe, evolution, designed by God, has been happily chuntering along with God (obviously) knowing the results.. including the creation of man, from the word go.

Why is that somehow less acceptable than the idea either that evolution doesn't exist (creationism) or that it does, but God - presumably not having managed to get it right in the first place - has to tinker with it from time to time (intelligent design)? It seems to come down to no more than some 19th century revulsion at the idea our ancestors may have been monkeys! Evolution/natural selection and theism are NOT incompatible, but it seems to me the false assumption that they are is why we see the persistent refusal by some to reject the vast balance of scientific evidence for the former in favour of the latter which is supported by no scientific evidence at all. "Irreducable complexity" has been pretty much shot-down completely, but creationist websites won't tell you that. 'God of the gaps' is feeble, both as philosophy and as science.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

You say that "its either God or Nature which made this fantastic creature". Why are you so quick to assume them to be mutually exclusive..

Good point Trumble... I guess I was in a haste to jump to that conclusion... evolution can very well be a mechanism that God placed.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim

why do people rely so much on the tangible..


do you not realise that when killing an innocent human being a deep feeling strikes the heart,

do you not realise that when stealing/fornicating etc for the first time causes such huge displeasure to the heart.


the one who controls these feelings controls nature...


whats IPU

1. what do you mean?
2. not everyone. but in general i would say that "feeling" deals with empathy.
3. not everyone. once again empathy for the stealing. and i never had any displeasure of the heart when i had sex for the first time.
4. IPU=Invisible Pink Unicorn.

format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim

^ Ranma, your telling me you felt no stinging in the heart whatso ever?

tell me how was your lifestyle before you did it the first time ?

was it full of sin?

perhaps your heart was already stone... to feel such things..

Why should i have a "stinging in my heart" from having sex?
I felt something but it wasnt a stinging.

I myself have led a very "good" life. As for sin, i dont believe in it and it is in general a very vauge concept. For clarity on my part. I in general describe good actions as being selfless and bad as being selfish. Typical mono theists gods seem to be very selfish beings.
Good fosters thinking and understanding, bad doesnt.