Evolution - Creationism

[InToTheRain]

I agree 100% with everything there with the one exception of exchanging the positions of 'evolution' and 'creationism'. I am simply not aware of anything other than faith (in something or other) that rationally supports creationism at all. In my opinion (and like faith - or not - that's all it can be, as you say) creationism is a myth designed to account for what was, when that myth was created, something totally inexplicable. Possibly not much, but things have moved on, and we are now making those first, difficult, steps along the road to real understanding. The quicker we can shed the excess intellectual luggage, the faster we will go. And, yes, I am quite concious that some would say exactly the same about my own spiritual beliefs!

And again I can repeat the argument that as time passes more steps are taken to a greater understanding for creationism hence against evolution. So Ditto but for creationism

 

[Pygoscelis]

Evolution is our best guess at how we came to be.

Creation is our best story of how we came to be.

Evolution appeals to truth and discards desire and tradition.

Creation appeals to desire and tradition and discards truth.

 

[Pygoscelis]

And again I can repeat the argument that as time passes more steps are taken to a greater understanding for creationism hence against evolution. So Ditto but for creationism

I'm having a difficulty time rading this statement. It is borderline incoherent.

"more steps are being taken to a greater understanding" means what? Religion is stuck in dogma and mired with holy books that are "innerant". Forward movement is considered a flaw, not a virtue as in science.
If steps are being taken "towards a greater understanding", what are these steps? Science is in the news everyday. I've never heard of religious progress besides heresy.

"greater understanding for creationism" means what?
You are inventing more to the story as time goes on?

"hence against evolution" makes no sense. As noted above creation and evolution need not always conflict.

 

[root]

PurestAmbrosia - google boast your "high degrees of certainty" How embaressing for you this cut and paste job!.. Do you have a mind of your own or is this where your rudimentary vestigial remnant presides?

Google! (LMAO), I prefer better sources. Yes, "High degree of certainty" is what is on offer here. for example: (and before I do I shall reiterate it once again, just for you. "high degrees of certainty"

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.

WARNING - The above qoute was cut and pasted by myself since I could not be bothered to re-type what I already wrote, even though this seems to bring the wrath of our favourite custard "Ambrosia" in it's purest form, or should that be ignorant form.

Scientists Agree "Evidence-based" facts.

As for having a mind of my own, I am agnostic on that. Perhaps you might google a few articles on free will eh!

PurestAmbrosia- common ancestors, genetic drift, morphological change, survival of the fittest, Embryology, yeast, change over time, adaptation, natural selection. ..........scatology. you have met the quota of most convuloted words per day.... Do you understand half of the stuff you posted up there? why or why not it would remotly negate the existence of a creator?

I could add additionally, survival of the luckiest or even Avatism since you negated them. I research very intensely as a hobby evolutionary developments so assure you I do understand what I quoted. This said, why are you asking why or why not it remotely negates the existence of a creater. Evolution and religion are compatible, however you have only revealed your own warped psycology than to believe in evolution is to be atheistic which of course like your post is utter nonsense.

PurestAmbrosia - You decide to use your right hand all the time, it hypertrophies --you neglect and disuse your left and it atrophies so much it becomes non-functional-- and you being a natural leader decide to invade a tribe and run a little experiment ...where you won't be judged harshly for your freakish arms; and view of a new superior one armed human race! All the people in the village in which you are now king follow in your lead until their left hand falls off over time from disuse... yipee yay kayay.. & with this you have now proven that G-D doesn't exist?

......a few generations down the line new folks come strolling in your town with two arms and intermarry with your village of freaks and voila Atavism woho a couple of you have arms G-D exists yet again and man in perfect form?

I worry about your state of mind when you wrote this dribble, after reading it I too felt like evolution was just a load of rubbish, then I realise. It was your assesment here that was rubbish and not representative of any evolution I know. Again, you imply wrongly that somehow evolution falsifies god. Perhaps I should shout it to help u:

EVOLUTION DOES NOT FALSIFY GOD............

I prey it may get through to u.

PurestAmbrosia - ...... you open a state of the art lab and go in a double blinded random study indiscriminately sampling folks, animals and plants from various sites and discover all the components from the various tissues are made of the exact same organic substances and proteins in different isometric structures and spatial arrangements, and suddenly you conclude we've all come from monkeys and whales and share common ancestry? and oh let me throw in there that it should also denote that G-D doesn't exist?

I liked the whale reference, however it's closest living ancestor is the Hippopotomus. And your state of the art labs is sadly lacking to the key facts that all scientific institutes have signed to. your words here are what some would call CRAP, others simply misguided.

PurestAmbrosia - creatures have existed millions and billions of years and are fossilized they share common genetic makeup with us made of the same stuff...these new books about G-D are a fairly new so that must mean he couldn't exist?

Who is "he" perhaps the spaghetti monster who is responsible for creating the universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

PurestAmbrosia - what do you know of creation except cliff notes from various blogs of which you have mustered the art plagiarizing ? a shame all you write is someone else's eloquent view... I don't understand remotely how you can tie humans acquiescing to the environment, creatures acquiescing to nature and all the events that run like clock works, changing, morphing acquiescing, losing or gaining traits having traits in common genetic drifiting, dominance or recessiveness of genes to mean that a governing deity doesn't exist? Have you actually read the Quran or any books preceding it? If for nothing else just simply to loan credence to your drivel! or for curiosity' sake.. like you would casually read a history book or the Canterbury tales, So that when you write you'd be more insightful and less abraisive...

We all know who created "US". here is a diagram of "him" (just for you)

PurestAmbrosia - It is tiresome this recycled hyperbolic rhetoric "proof", "truth" behaving like a clever 2 year old who has run an adult in a corner... -------

Agreed, this is tiresome. After this post all I can say is. Welcome to my iggy list.

-- I can't believe I wasted my time on this... I really have no one to blame but myself--I am ready to take another hiatus, please take all the time in the world to come up with one of you derisive & expected replies!.... I have lost all interest in this ad hominem!
........ beam me up scotty....

Perhaps you should read Steve's response and learn the meaning of being civil and actually debating as opposed to the rubbish you have churned out

Steve - Thanks for the response, reply is in the making.

Regards

root

 

[جوري]

PurestAmbrosia - google boast your "high degrees of certainty" How embaressing for you this cut and paste job!.. Do you have a mind of your own or is this where your rudimentary vestigial remnant presides?

Google! (LMAO), I prefer better sources. Yes, "High degree of certainty" is what is on offer here. for example: (and before I do I shall reiterate it once again, just for you. "high degrees of certainty"

better sources than what? putting your own mind to work G-D forbid?

Quote:
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.

WARNING - The above qoute was cut and pasted by myself since I could not be bothered to re-type what I already wrote, even though this seems to bring the wrath of our favourite custard "Ambrosia" in it's purest form, or should that be ignorant form.

Are you tired of posting the same thing over? we got it! you get excellent third party information from the Smithonian.... as for ignorance glad you picked up on this adequate assessment of self....

Scientists Agree "Evidence-based" facts.

As for having a mind of my own, I am agnostic on that. Perhaps you might google a few articles on free will eh!

lol... Now here is something original... you really stand out from the pack of other agnostics... although I'll give you that much free will to be more obnoxious....

Quote:
PurestAmbrosia- common ancestors, genetic drift, morphological change, survival of the fittest, Embryology, yeast, change over time, adaptation, natural selection. ..........scatology. you have met the quota of most convuloted words per day.... Do you understand half of the stuff you posted up there? why or why not it would remotly negate the existence of a creator?

I could add additionally, survival of the luckiest or even Avatism since you negated them. I research very intensely as a hobby evolutionary developments so assure you I do understand what I quoted. This said, why are you asking why or why not it remotely negates the existence of a creater. Evolution and religion are compatible, however you have only revealed your own warped psycology than to believe in evolution is to be atheistic which of course like your post is utter nonsense.

How have I revealed evolution to be atheitsic? Why are you posting here if you so agree evolution and religion are compatible. It is our sincere hope that you find a hobby you can muster! -- ... ...so which is your hobby--evolution, psychology or Psychobabble?

Quote:
PurestAmbrosia - You decide to use your right hand all the time, it hypertrophies --you neglect and disuse your left and it atrophies so much it becomes non-functional-- and you being a natural leader decide to invade a tribe and run a little experiment ...where you won't be judged harshly for your freakish arms; and view of a new superior one armed human race! All the people in the village in which you are now king follow in your lead until their left hand falls off over time from disuse... yipee yay kayay.. & with this you have now proven that G-D doesn't exist?

......a few generations down the line new folks come strolling in your town with two arms and intermarry with your village of freaks and voila Atavism woho a couple of you have arms G-D exists yet again and man in perfect form?

I worry about your state of mind when you wrote this dribble, after reading it I too felt like evolution was just a load of rubbish, then I realise. It was your assesment here that was rubbish and not representative of any evolution I know. Again, you imply wrongly that somehow evolution falsifies god. Perhaps I should shout it to help u:

EVOLUTION DOES NOT FALSIFY GOD............

Please don't worry yourself too much. I wouldn't want you to spontaneously implode... =)--- "rubbish rubbish rubbish" Does this hyperorality fit usually come to you preceeded with an aura? I think you need to get that checked out.

I prey it may get through to u.

I wouldn't want you to pray or "prey" <<<which would be a little frightening ... from you it would be just plain wasteful.......

Quote:
PurestAmbrosia - ...... you open a state of the art lab and go in a double blinded random study indiscriminately sampling folks, animals and plants from various sites and discover all the components from the various tissues are made of the exact same organic substances and proteins in different isometric structures and spatial arrangements, and suddenly you conclude we've all come from monkeys and whales and share common ancestry? and oh let me throw in there that it should also denote that G-D doesn't exist?

I liked the whale reference, however it's closest living ancestor is the Hippopotomus. And your state of the art labs is sadly lacking to the key facts that all scientific institutes have signed to. your words here are what some would call CRAP, others simply misguided.

Glad our refrence bemused you... and who signed to what? what are you trying to say here? does answering crap with more crap cause them to nullify each other?

Quote:
PurestAmbrosia - creatures have existed millions and billions of years and are fossilized they share common genetic makeup with us made of the same stuff...these new books about G-D are a fairly new so that must mean he couldn't exist?

Who is "he" perhaps the spaghetti monster who is responsible for creating the universe:




Quote:
PurestAmbrosia - what do you know of creation except cliff notes from various blogs of which you have mustered the art plagiarizing ? a shame all you write is someone else's eloquent view... I don't understand remotely how you can tie humans acquiescing to the environment, creatures acquiescing to nature and all the events that run like clock works, changing, morphing acquiescing, losing or gaining traits having traits in common genetic drifiting, dominance or recessiveness of genes to mean that a governing deity doesn't exist? Have you actually read the Quran or any books preceding it? If for nothing else just simply to loan credence to your drivel! or for curiosity' sake.. like you would casually read a history book or the Canterbury tales, So that when you write you'd be more insightful and less abraisive...

We all know who created "US". here is a diagram of "him" (just for you)

hmmmmmmmn... I think this is just your inner child writing-- and the drawing is cute!... hope you get first place in the little Ms. art project!

Quote:
PurestAmbrosia - It is tiresome this recycled hyperbolic rhetoric "proof", "truth" behaving like a clever 2 year old who has run an adult in a corner... -------

Agreed, this is tiresome. After this post all I can say is. Welcome to my iggy list.

Thanks-- I gave up iggy pop some time in my teenage years! but you are welcome to do whatever you need to help you along! BTW. mecamylamine is making a come back for people who go into spontaneous Tourette!

Quote:
-- I can't believe I wasted my time on this... I really have no one to blame but myself--I am ready to take another hiatus, please take all the time in the world to come up with one of you derisive & expected replies!.... I have lost all interest in this ad hominem!
........ beam me up scotty....

Perhaps you should read Steve's response and learn the meaning of being civil and actually debating as opposed to the rubbish you have churned out

You reap what you sow... so no need to bring third party examples into this because you can't handle yourself......You are a Pseudo intellect and a self-proclaimed illuminati. Your assurances and ready paste articles are as authentic as a three dollar bill. I don't see much in the making of a debate between "custard", "ignorance", "prey" , "spaghetti" not to mention tons of self aggrandizing humbug --I can only deduce you were hungry while watching a Geico cave man commercial? .. from your previous manifestos especially the " Are vaccines Haram?" I can tell how much depth and understanding you give to anything you write and how much knowledge you have of the sources you so readily Quote . My guess is you have been having a little sciatica lately and perhaps that part of your body is where all your afflications have descended?.....
peace

 

[wilberhum]

For the skeptic, no amount of proof will be enough, and for the believer, no amount of proof is necessary.

???? no amount of proof will be enough ????????????
There is no proof.

 

[InToTheRain]

"greater understanding for creationism" means what?
You are inventing more to the story as time goes on?

What is with your need to make inflammatory remarks with people who disagree with your belief? You do know that the stories being invented criticism works both ways because as I have mentioned before they are based on FAITH.

what I was saying to Trumble who I am sure (hope ) has greater intellectual abilty then you is that at times goes by more discoveries are bieng made. As those discoveries are bieng made Trumble says more steps are bieng made towards the discovery of reality, which in his opinion is based upon the Evolution theory. However there are also more findings which complement our beliefs.

for example some of the findings due to mordern advancements in science which confirm with our belief can be found here:

The Quran and Modern Science

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Steve - Thanks for the response, reply is in the making.
Regards
root

Thx, looking foreward to it

Ps: easy on the arguments ad absurdum, you gonna get people a heart attack

 

[Woodrow]

Please stay on topic.

 

[Trumble]

However there are also more findings which complement our beliefs.

for example some of the findings due to mordern advancements in science which confirm with our belief can be found here:

The Quran and Modern Science

That's just the same old Qur'anic 'scientific proofs' again. Which in all cases 'prove' nothing and in most are ridiculously vague and forced interpretations. You could create a completely new, fantasy, 'science' over-night and find just as many passages that force-fit that if you tried.

For example (taking one I haven't discussed before; a great many I have)

“He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress.”
[Al-Qur’an 55:19-20]

So sea water is always salty (you can't drink it), and river water is always not (you can drink it). Fair enough. But that's all that's there, anything about two oceans not mixing, pycnocline zones and such is only suggested because people desperately wish to see such 'proofs'. The rest are just the same. Hardly evidence for creationism!

 

[Pygoscelis]

What is with your need to make inflammatory remarks with people who disagree with your belief? You do know that the stories being invented criticism works both ways because as I have mentioned before they are based on FAITH.

I'm sorry that you are offended by my calling your stories stories. But this highlights a fundamental difference between religion and science. Science does NOT HAVE fundamental stories that are held to be innerant.

Evolution is our best guess, it isn't the complete truth, and could very well be a misunderstanding of what we observe. It is theory, not dogma. In fact, evolution as now theorized is likely NOT to be completely accurate. The whole point of science is to correct and adapt our understanding, the polar opposite of how religion operates.

what I was saying to Trumble who I am sure (hope ) has greater intellectual abilty then you

Don't go whining about me making inflamatory remarks when you write things like this. Don't be a hypocrite.

is that at times goes by more discoveries are bieng made. As those discoveries are bieng made Trumble says more steps are bieng made towards the discovery of reality, which in his opinion is based upon the Evolution theory.

Here again you highlight the fundamentl difference between science and religion. No scientist would ever claim as you put it here that reality is based on evolution theory. You are misapplying a religious mindset.

 

[InToTheRain]

Don't go whining about me making inflamatory remarks when you write things like this. Don't be a hypocrite.

Apologies, but I expected this response. Wanted to make a point, we can all make deragatory comments about each other in many ways and it doesn't feel nice to be on the receiving end does it? let's try to keep the discussions civilised, prejudices aside and constructive.

Here again you highlight the fundamentl difference between science and religion. No scientist would ever claim as you put it here that reality is based on evolution theory. You are misapplying a religious mindset.

This I find hard understanding, if science isn't the the study of reality and the worlld around us then what is it a study of? your belief in the evolution theory makes you pecieve reality the way you do, Of course it's a theory, but nonetheless how you choose to live your life revolves around this belief.

 

[Muslim Knight]

The evolution theory says the survival of species depend on natural selection that is the introduction of new characteristics as adaptation to environment. However, aside from science fictions, is there real case scenario where humans have mutated new characteristics that will enable them to adapt to harsh environments?

We are aware that most mutations have resulted in pre-mature deaths and cancers, and none of them has given benefits.

 

[InToTheRain]

For example (taking one I haven't discussed before; a great many I have)

“He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together: Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress.”
[Al-Qur’an 55:19-20]

So sea water is always salty (you can't drink it), and river water is always not (you can drink it). Fair enough. But that's all that's there, anything about two oceans not mixing, pycnocline zones and such is only suggested because people desperately wish to see such 'proofs'. The rest are just the same. Hardly evidence for creationism!

Just to highlight what you have said bold, It clearly says in the QUranic verse

"...Between them is a Barrier which they do not transgress" - the do not transgress the barrier, for if it did it would mix. The kind of detail you are looking for won't be found here as it's not a book of "science" but "signs". I agree that people do deperately want to see such proofs, because It reafirms ones faith, has there been a Quranic verse which goes against the scientific findings to date? NO! and bear in mind just as there is many who despeatley seek to reafirm there faith through investigations of the valdity of the quranic verses there are many who see it as an unwanted boon for which many will be grateful to get rid of. Then again it still boils down to faith, and how you choose to percieve something may not be the same as me as proven initially in this post.

Science is a part of Islam, not the end and all there is.

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

Peace

 

[brenton]

I find it interesting that the creation-evolution debate on Christian websites is hardly and different.

For my part, I'm a conservative Christian who reads the Christian Bible literally according to its genre. I've convinced that Genesis 1-2 was not written to prove Darwin wrong. It sounds crazy, but my hunch is that Moses or whoever wrote Genesis (it is anonymous) didn't even know about Genesis. It is polemical and apologetical--it argues against Egyptian idolatry as the poem progresses, and argues for YHWH's right to rule on earth and made image-bearers from the earth--but it is not polemical against Darwinism, nor is it apologetic for Creationism or any other pseudo-scientific or scientific theory.

Genesis and Job, the two main "creational" descriptions in the Christian Bible, were written long before science was any more than encyclopaedic lists, medical inquiries, agricultural and hunting guides, and proto-scientific observation. Its genre cannot be scientific--it wasn't invented yet!

The Bible does say that YHWH-God created the world; it does not say how in any scientific way.

I'm not a physical scientist, so I cannot say whether evolution is true. In some ways, as a layman, the story seems to fit, and the science that produces it bears fruit in medical areas--the main area I want to see advancement. So I'm glad it is happening.

I can speak to the philosophical aspect, and I think that the philosophy and sociology based on evolution are poorly built. Evolution says nothing positive toward secular humanism or eugenics--these are conclusions built on the scientific base, and not "scientific" in the same way.

Creationism or intelligent design or secular humanism or eugenic racism may offer historical or philosophical or sociological "proofs," but they are not scientific in the same way.

The scientists in the physical fields are, of course, invited to debate the science. Most of us on her are not able to do that.

For me, nothing in the scientific understanding of evolution contradicts my Bible or the belief that God created and is sovereign.

 

[Pygoscelis]

We are aware that most mutations have resulted in pre-mature deaths and cancers, and none of them has given benefits.

THe vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. Mutation hurts far more than it helps. But every now and again a mutation IS beneficial. And if it is beneficial enough that it takes an individual to breeding age while others don't survive that long, or it leads an individual to breed more than others, that is how evolution operates.

It takes place over a very long period of time so it is difficult to observe, especially in humans who have very much taken over their environment. Modern science has impeded evolution of the human species in that we assist the weak and least adapted to the environment to live long enough to breed and have offspring.

Evolution is readily visible though if you look in the right places. Bacteria and viruses are constantly evolving, and very quickly. As we come up with new medicine to combat them, bacteria and viruses evolve new strains. This keeps the viruses alive and the researchers employed

There are thousands of viruses around today that didn't exist even twenty years ago.

 

[Muslim Knight]

Evolution is readily visible though if you look in the right places. Bacteria and viruses are constantly evolving, and very quickly. As we come up with new medicine to combat them, bacteria and viruses evolve new strains. This keeps the viruses alive and the researchers employed

Yet evolution theory stresses about physical characteristics change, like reptiles into archeopteryx into birds. That is pretty significant. These are not simply changes at the molecular level but total rearrangement of muscular and skeletal structures.

Considering at least 2000 years of human history we ought to have some changes in our physical make up, if evolution is correct.

 

[zoro]

It astounds me that so many people, such as "benton" and "Woodrow", are unashamed (even proud!) to admit that they form opinions based on zero evidence. "brenton" wrote: "For me, nothing in the scientific understanding of evolution contradicts my Bible or the belief that God created and is sovereign." Woodrow wrote: "We know because we believe and the believing has given us the faith to trust and that trust is all we need to know." Meanwhile, nothing in science contradicts the idea that all invisible flying elephants are pink; so, do you "think" that they are? By "believing" that they're pink, do you then "know" that they are? Does that belief give you faith to trust -- and is that trust all you need to know? People who form similar "beliefs" about being abducted by space aliens usually end up in the looney bin.

But I expect that there's more to it than that. I expect that people "believe" such silly ideas as creationism and the existences of various gods, without a shred of evidence to support such ideas, because their mothers and their clerics told them that they'd be good little boys and girls if they just "believed" and had "faith". And although some clerics may actually "believe" the nonsense they preach, I expect that many of them (especially the first ones to establish any religion) promote such nonsense solely because it's got all the necessary ingredients of a great con game, in which they promise people perpetual pardise in exchange for good, cold, hard cash. As Votaire said: "The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool."

Why don't people appreciate the fallacy of the "proof by pleasure" principle? Because it gives you pleasure, you may "believe" that there aren't millions of children in the world starving to death, but what does the evidence suggest? You may "believe" that some god snapped his fingers (or whatever), created the Earth and humans to populate it, and will give you eternal life in paradise if you obey the clerics, but what does the evidence suggest? And you may believe that, eventually, peace and prosperity will prevail in the world -- and it may -- but not courtesy any help from people who "believe" and "have faith" when no evidence supports such belief and faith.

That way is the path taken by the suicide bombers. I grant them that they have "the courage of their convictions", but they're blinded by their "beliefs". In reality, it takes no courage to kill yourself (and your many victims) if you've convinced yourself that you're going straight to paradise. What it does take is astounding stupidity: to believe any idea that doesn't have tiniest shred of data to support it -- but only the opinions of a bunch of con-artist clerics and those that they've managed to con.

And of course I don't care what perversions consenting adults practice in their own homes (or in their own minds), but come on people, there's work to do! "brenton" wants the "fruits" that evolution yields in the "medical area" -- and I bet he does -- but what effort has he put in to justify his eating the fruits of someone else's efforts? Islamic extremists use cellphones, the internet, airplanes, etc. to destroy, but what do they contribute to humanity -- besides terror and the promise to put the clerics back in control, to plunge humanity into another clerically induced Dark Ages, and this time for the entire world.

And if (as the evidence suggests) such people as "brenton" and "Woodrow" don't have the intellectual capabilities to contribute to advancing science, then not to worry, because there's still much useful work that such people can do -- and I don't necessarily mean just collecting garbage and cleaning toilets (although those are extremely important jobs to do). But to pollute other people by perpetuating their fallacious "proof by pleasure" garbage is a crime against humanity -- perhaps even worse than blowing themselves up as a terrorists, because after exploding their bombs, "brenton" and "Woodward" are still around to harm even more people.

 

[Woodrow]

I believe that all of the posts that were leading to personal arguements have now been removed so let us continue and keep it peaceful.

 

[Woodrow]

And if (as the evidence suggests) such people as "brenton" and "Woodrow" don't have the intellectual capabilities to contribute to advancing science, then not to worry, because there's still much useful work that such people can do -- and I don't necessarily mean just collecting garbage and cleaning toilets (although those are extremely important jobs to do). But to pollute other people by perpetuating their fallacious "proof by pleasure" garbage is a crime against humanity -- perhaps even worse than blowing themselves up as a terrorists, because after exploding their bombs, "brenton" and "Woodward" are still around to harm even more people.

I do have a few scientific credentials in at least the field of Biology. My major contributions and publications were in research of the basic engram of cognitive thought and the evolutionary processes of it's development.

I was very far removed from the religious world for much of my life and even further removed from Islam until 2 years ago.

I did not accept Islam blindly and actualy fought against it for over 50 years of my life. I came to accept it for several reasons and it was not out of blind faith. I have had more than sufficient independant verifiacation to prove to me that the Qur'an is true and is a valid teaching. I have found on my own and/or read more than enough scientific documentations that it is scientific.

I do have enough knowledge to know that Darwinism is not the Theory of evolution and that his work was simply an explanation of a possible process of the origin of species. I have absolutly no disagreement with evolution and accept it as a fact for plants and animals. I just do not find any evidence that mankind fits into the evolutionarily processes as explained by some of my former colleagues.



This statement is correct:

"Woodrow" don't have the intellectual capabilities to contribute to advancing science,

I am long retired and have done all of the scientific contributions I desire to. The remainder of my days are dedicated to the study of Islam and to try to undo many lost years I spent in the materialistic world of academics.

Now when you want to have a serious discussion about scientific evidence of the Qur'an please ask politly and if I have time I may fit you into my schedule.