Atheism

[TrueMeasure]

Evolution was much easier to support during the time of Darwin when the cell was known only as a very simple structure comprising of little but lumps of lipids and protiens and when it was believed that maggots spontaneously came into being from rotten meat. But given the advances of todays science in all of its diverse areas it is becomming increasingly difficult to accept the theory of evolution. Day by day it is becoming more of a dogma that people refuse to let go off in the face of such overwhelming evidence against it.

Even the evidence you quote of the hobit man is in hot debate and provides no solid evidence of evolution. I am registered with harun yahya and recieve his news letter that aim to dispell all the lies and brainwashing we come across REGULARLY in the media concerning evolution. I will direct you to an article of his clarifying the latest about the hobit man. You should know that his references and scientific evidence rarely come from creationist scientists.

http://www.harunyahya.com/articles/70homo_floresiensis_3.php

I believe strongly that evolution will die out eventually from main stream science. It is only a matter of time..

 

[root]

Evolution was much easier to support during the time of Darwin when the cell was known only as a very simple structure comprising of little but lumps of lipids and protiens and when it was believed that maggots spontaneously came into being from rotten meat.

LOL, good one. Like the "Fire-Cracking" beetle was forced onto everyone as a "species" only capable of existence through creation thus evolution was wrong!!!!! Or are you still claiming this a "evidence" of design?

But given the advances of todays science in all of its diverse areas it is becomming increasingly difficult to accept the theory of evolution. Day by day it is becoming more of a dogma that people refuse to let go off in the face of such overwhelming evidence against it.

That is an opinion with a certain biased view. I tend to go with a majority and investigate very carefully minority views such as yours.

Even the evidence you quote of the hobit man is in hot debate and provides no solid evidence of evolution. I am registered with harun yahya and recieve his news letter that aim to dispell all the lies and brainwashing we come across REGULARLY in the media concerning evolution. I will direct you to an article of his clarifying the latest about the hobit man. You should know that his references and scientific evidence rarely come from creationist scientists.

I went to your suggested link...........

The evolutionist claim that Homo floresiensis represents a separate species to modern-day man continues to retreat in the face of increasing objections. The Times Online, the Internet edition of The Times and The Sunday Times newspapers, summarised the latest developments on the subject in these terms:

For a "hot Topic" as you have suggested, your source material was most recently dated at December 2004. Perhaps you should update yourself a little more:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050228/full/050228-13.html
March 3rd 2005

PS. Quoted from your site:

... Secondary microcephaly has a host of causes, from viral infection during pregnancy to injury or malnutrition shortly after birth. The specimens were found in an cave on an island. Who is to say that the island hadn't been swept by an viral epidemic 18,000 years ago that had caused an outbreak of the condition?

An interesting point. So, these were normal Homo-Sapians who were in the process of migration and caught a brain\bone shrinking disease and died. Or they were pygmies and one of them had the said disease.

No wonder the majority opinion is NOT with your "hypothosis". Faced with the evidence that we already know what caused the "new Species" to become extinct and it was a volcanic disaster which coincidently correctly dates back to the extinction of the hobbit man. Further, the size of tools used by the hobit man were in comparison with their size (i.e small hand tools).

To add insult to injury, the scientists you are quoting in your link actually got the sex wrong!!!

To add insult to injury, Professor Jacob said that the fossil on which the description of Homo floriensis was based was not female, as the Nature paper had claimed, but male.

 

[Brother_Mujahid]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4398345.stm just found this article on the bbc.........

 

[root]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4398345.stm just found this article on the bbc.........

I like that article.

Any philosopher of science will tell you that evolution is theory, not fact, but so is gravity and all other pieces of scientific knowledge. However, gravity being a theory (rather than irrefutable fact) doesn't stop us from putting astronauts on the moon. Creationists should really rethink what science is before criticising it.

When I drop a stone, Science theory tells me it will fall...........!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Brother_Mujahid]

so do i.........

Reverend William.......Is evolution incompatible with Christianity? "Yes," he says, "because ultimately evolution simply dismisses God."

Before Darwin, creationism was the widely held view
He feels frustrated that the scientific evidence is not treated more seriously. "So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give the impression that only fools believe in creation, when there are many eminent scientists who say there is some evidence of design there."

 

[root]

So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give the impression that only fools believe in creation,

I think this can be quite true and stems from the creationist opinion. "We are here and thus proves we are here by intelligent design"

That statement to support intelligent design is a very arrogant one.

 

[Brother_Mujahid]

you missed the second part of the staement which says

when there are many eminent scientists who say there is some evidence of design there.

 

[root]

you missed the second part of the staement which says

It was not relevent to arrogance. But now you have said it even I myself do not rule out "creationism" by Intelligent design. But be wary if you link the existence of god with scientific creationism. For the two are not always related!!! We are in danger of going down the same old boring road as drawing opposite sides. One can beleive in god and the theory of evolution in it's current form?

Some should be less hostile and that way they get more respect. And I don't mean you Brother Mujahid.

Regards

Root

 

[Uthman]

Please forgive me for being off-topic but could you please tell me what would an atheist make of these drawings Root?

 

[root]

Pleasing to the eye!

 

[Uthman]

No, seriously . . . . .

 

[root]

Seriosly, I really don't make anything of it other than it is an interesting piece of art. Maybe a reflection of the physical self.

What is it suppose to represent?

 

[Uthman]

It could either represent the universe coming into existence without a creator or the creator himself coming into existence. I forgot why I asked for your opinion now :-[

Well, it's interesting to say the least. Just thought I'd ask.

 

[Link]

it represents the chicken or the egg question

 

[root]

Oh, that one.

*sigh*

 

[Uthman]

Stupid question

The chicken came first! Why? Because I said so

 

[root]

Well, I would say the "chicken". when you get down to it ultimately where this is where it would lead. However, to this specific species I would say "Neither"

Trying to avoid the "Hypothosy" what came first, cell division or mutation (If any).

 

[TrueMeasure]

Yes i went to your suggested link too. I'll take that as the latest development on the flores fossil but by far not the final. Like i said it is a hotly debated issue and i expect much to be revealed yet... there have been numerous embarrasing blunders by evolutionists in the past that time has uncovered.. i shall wait to see what arises from this yet...

as far as the fire cracking beetle is concerned, this amongst MANY MANY examples provides strong evidence for creation. There are just too many irreducibly complex creatures and systems in which evolution falls flat on its face.

 

[root]

as far as the fire cracking beetle is concerned, this amongst MANY MANY examples provides strong evidence for creation.

Well the example of the firecracking beetle was proven to be every bit as possible under evolution than creationism. Though at first it did appear that evolution could never have evolved such a species as this.

 

[Genius]

Every proven Scientific principle follows a law, what is that law for evolution? Randomness? are all mutations random? Well mutations have to be random they wouldn't be mutations if they had set rules.

Now evolution concerns random mutations which give a selective advanatage, what that doesn't explain is how the structure of a human eye and the structure of an octopus's eye are remarkably simmilar despite their' apparent common ancestor being blind.

Obviously some rule is being followed, the mutations occuring cannot be random since they produce 2 nearly identical organs in 2 very different species. Where does this rule come from? God i wonder?